With the passing of Justice Scalia, a whole new political dynamic has opened up, not only for the remainder of President Obama’s term, but for the election for his successor as well. I realize that it is very unlikely to happen for various reasons, but there are some compelling rationales for the White House to kill two birds with one stone and appoint Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) as his successor.
What might such an appointment accomplish you ask? First, the White house is apparently quite concerned about HRC's candidacy, not only how she is conducting it (which could be considered repairable) but also some of the decisions she has made which might really hurt her in a general (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/7/1481227/-Carl-Bernstein-White-House-horrified-at-how-Hillary-Clinton-is-blowing-up-her-campaign). If both the White House and HRC determine that these un-correctable missteps make her November electability more suspect, this might be a palatable solution to address the problem.
The second “bird” is the challenge of getting ANY appointee confirmed. A GOP controlled Senate might decide that they are willing to trade a Supreme Court nominee for taking the HRC chess piece off the presidential playing board. I think they believe that Bernie Sanders is totally unelectable, and that with HRC gone they are a in for a November cakewalk. The calculus that HRC has demonstrated some pretty favorable views toward the rights of corporations might make putting her on the court more palatable, making the calculus of this decisions slightly more favorable.
Of course, all of this is wild speculation and relies on pretty subtle analysis of both current state assessments of HRC’s chances in both the primaries and the General, and also assessments of moves and counter-moves by players on both sides. I just had to post this thought because I found the concept irresistible!