PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire



Rockntractor
04-30-2009, 10:42 PM
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

by Nina Totenberg
Enlarge


U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter smiles after speaking during a dedication ceremony at the State Supreme Courthouse in Concord, N.H., on July 9, 2008.

Enlarge

Paul J. Richards

Justice Souter in March 2006, on a Supreme Court "class photo" day. AFP/Getty Images


NPR.org, April 30, 2009 NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

Rockntractor
04-30-2009, 10:52 PM
This would be a perfect job for a pro choice anti gun homosexual that needs work.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-01-2009, 05:35 AM
This is where the long term damage to our freedoms begin.

SarasotaRepub
05-01-2009, 07:04 AM
Oh brother...here we go.

Why doesn't the Prez just nominate someone from the EU since
using "World Law" is getting so popular...:rolleyes:

Or maybe Kim Jong Ill!!!! That'll quiet those pesky NK's!!!!

Water Closet
05-01-2009, 07:20 AM
This would be a perfect job for a pro choice anti gun homosexual that needs work.

Well, of course Obama will pick a judge sympathetic to gay rights and pro-choice. This is one of the reasons he was elected, just as Bush was elected to pick judges with philosophies such as Alito and Roberts. To expect anything different, or even to be particularly upset by such a pick, is to deny the reality of the election.

Lager
05-01-2009, 07:47 AM
Wouldn't it be fantastic if judges were picked strictly for their ability, intellect and character and nobody gave a rat's ass about their feelings on pet issues? And I'm talking about both sides here.

FlaGator
05-01-2009, 08:40 AM
Wouldn't it be fantastic if judges were picked strictly for their ability, intellect and character and nobody gave a rat's ass about their feelings on pet issues? And I'm talking about both sides here.

Who do you judge those things, particularly the character part and exclude there political leanings?

Nubs
05-01-2009, 08:48 AM
and thus the real reason Spector switched.

linda22003
05-01-2009, 09:03 AM
Since this isn't one of the more-anticipated retirements, it begs the question of just how many appointments Obama might get to make.

noonwitch
05-01-2009, 09:10 AM
Since this isn't one of the more-anticipated retirements, it begs the question of just how many appointments Obama might get to make.


I was expecting Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to retire. Stevens is never going to retire, he's going to die in office. He's one of those old guys like my grandpa who keeps going.

I'm curious as to whom Obama will pick for the court. I've been wondering if the reason former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer isn't running for Governor in 2010 is because he might be getting something like this. He served on the Michigan Supreme Court prior to becoming mayor, and he's well-liked in Michigan, by all. A lot of the developments that Kwame took credit for are things Archer actually put into motion.

Unlike some of Obama's other appointments, Archer has no skeletons in his closet and was known for cleaning up city government. His wife is a successful judge, and his family is respected.

Lars1701a
05-01-2009, 09:21 AM
I am not to worried about this pick he cant do any worse then the libs on the court now.

Now if any of the smart, coservatives retire then I will begin to worry.

Gingersnap
05-01-2009, 09:42 AM
This is where the long term damage to our freedoms begin.

Souter already went down that road with the eminent domain disaster.

linda22003
05-01-2009, 10:02 AM
Ages of the Justices:

Stevens: 89
Ginsburg:76
Scalia: 73
Kennedy: 72
Breyer: 70
Souter: 69
Thomas: 60
Alito: 59
Roberts: 54

Just something to think about.

Lager
05-01-2009, 11:27 AM
Who do you judge those things, particularly the character part and exclude there political leanings?

In my perfect world, a judge wouldn't be governed by his or her political leanings, but by a devotion to truth and justice. Picking and approving a SC Justice based on what their opinion is, on a select group of pet issues, just seems wrong to me.

linda22003
05-01-2009, 11:33 AM
In my perfect world, a judge wouldn't be governed by his or her political leanings, but by a devotion to truth and justice.

I'm sure they would all define themselves that way, though.

noonwitch
05-01-2009, 11:34 AM
Ages of the Justices:

Stevens: 89
Ginsburg:76
Scalia: 73
Kennedy: 72
Breyer: 70
Souter: 69
Thomas: 60
Alito: 59
Roberts: 54

Just something to think about.



I did not realize Scalia was 73. He doesn't look that old.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-01-2009, 11:46 AM
Well, of course Obama will pick a judge sympathetic to gay rights and pro-choice. This is one of the reasons he was elected, just as Bush was elected to pick judges with philosophies such as Alito and Roberts. To expect anything different, or even to be particularly upset by such a pick, is to deny the reality of the election.


How about one the follows the Constitution???

Constitutionally Speaking
05-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Souter already went down that road with the eminent domain disaster.

No doubt. But we had a real chance to actually make a difference, and now we will have to wait another 20 years. The liberal anti-constitution justices are all up for replacement, and you can bet they will leave the court during the time that Obama will pick their replacement.

We also run the risk that the pro-Constitution justices may die and be replaced by Obama also.

Space Gravy
05-01-2009, 11:50 AM
The front-runner to succeed Souter appears to be U.S. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Sotomayor has an excellent record in legal terms, she is a woman, and she is Hispanic. Obama won his sweeping election victory on Nov. 4, 2008, with very strong support from the Hispanic community and from female activists. There is no judge of Hispanic background currently on the court, and the president has also made clear he would like to have another female judge.

Another possibility is Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who was a colleague of Obama at the University of Chicago.

Obama's own solicitor general, Elena Kagan, has also been tipped as a front-runner for the position, but she seems less likely precisely because she has hit the ground running so well for the White House so far. Obama has had more than his share of embarrassments in top-level appointments who had to withdraw, or who have proved controversial lightning rods for widespread criticism like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. He will want to hang on to the ones like Kagan who are doing well at this early point in his administration. When Ginsburg steps down, Kagan may be the president's choice to succeed her.



Link (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/05/01/Obama-may-pick-Sotomayor-for-Supreme-Court/UPI-51621241192566/)

patriot45
05-01-2009, 11:50 AM
How about one the follows the Constitution???

Depends on which on! The living breathing liberal one or the set in stone one!

linda22003
05-01-2009, 11:55 AM
I did not realize Scalia was 73. He doesn't look that old.

That Grecian Formula is great stuff. :)

Constitutionally Speaking
05-01-2009, 12:22 PM
Depends on which on! The living breathing liberal one or the set in stone one!


The one that there is a set out prescribed and written method of changing it. Not the one where the whims of the day make judicial precedent.

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 12:48 PM
Well, of course Obama will pick a judge sympathetic to gay rights and pro-choice. This is one of the reasons he was elected, just as Bush was elected to pick judges with philosophies such as Alito and Roberts. To expect anything different, or even to be particularly upset by such a pick, is to deny the reality of the election.
Except that's not exactly what he ran on, now is it? He didn't claim to be in favor of gay marriage, for example, he claimed to oppose it (wonder what Perez Hilton would make of that?), and while we knew that he was pro choice, he also tried to make the claim to Catholics that he wasn't doctrinaire about it.
And, if Bush was elected to pick judges such as Alito and Roberts, why did the Senate give them so much grief during the confirmation hearings? Does anyone think that a Republican on the Judiciary Committee will subject a Democratic nominee to that level of vitriol or hard questioning, no matter how radical their background?

I am not to worried about this pick he cant do any worse then the libs on the court now.
Now if any of the smart, coservatives retire then I will begin to worry.
This is true. As long as Scalia's health remains strong, I'm not worried. Besides, how much farther to the left can he go compared with Ginsberg and Breyer? Unless he appoints Ron Kuby, it's not likely.

In my perfect world, a judge wouldn't be governed by his or her political leanings, but by a devotion to truth and justice. Picking and approving a SC Justice based on what their opinion is, on a select group of pet issues, just seems wrong to me.
I prefer that judges follow the law. Truth and justice are subjective with this crowd, but law is pretty cut and dried.

Water Closet
05-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Except that's not exactly what he ran on, now is it? He didn't claim to be in favor of gay marriage, for example, he claimed to oppose it (wonder what Perez Hilton would make of that?), and while we knew that he was pro choice, he also tried to make the claim to Catholics that he wasn't doctrinaire about it.
And, if Bush was elected to pick judges such as Alito and Roberts, why did the Senate give them so much grief during the confirmation hearings? Does anyone think that a Republican on the Judiciary Committee will subject a Democratic nominee to that level of vitriol or hard questioning, no matter how radical their background? ...

Uhm, I said "sympathetic to gay rights," I did not say "a supporter of gay marriage." As to the Dems attempting to block Bush's appointees vs. the Repubs attempting to block Obama's, do you really believe that if they had the power to block, they wouldn't. The Dems were in a much better position when Bush was nominating justices than the Repubs are now. Again, the consequences of elections.

FlaGator
05-01-2009, 03:19 PM
In my perfect world, a judge wouldn't be governed by his or her political leanings, but by a devotion to truth and justice. Picking and approving a SC Justice based on what their opinion is, on a select group of pet issues, just seems wrong to me.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need judges. The problem being is a lot of people believe that truth is relative so what they see as honesty others will view as dishonesty. Just look at the argument over WMD's in Iraq. Bush operated on what he believed was good intelligence but the intelligence was bad. The left say he lied but the right says he was wrong. Both views cannot be right but neither side will give in. The same thing will happen with judges.

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 03:54 PM
Uhm, I said "sympathetic to gay rights," I did not say "a supporter of gay marriage."
Since gays now equate anything less than full-throated support for gay marriage as horrific bigotry, is there any difference between the two positions, or can one be supportive of gay rights without supporting their claim to equality in marriage laws? Regardless, I have no doubt that an Obama SCOTUS pick will somehow find a "right" to same-sex marriage in the US Constitution that has previously eluded every other Supreme Court since Marbury vs. Madison.

As to the Dems attempting to block Bush's appointees vs. the Repubs attempting to block Obama's, do you really believe that if they had the power to block, they wouldn't. The Dems were in a much better position when Bush was nominating justices than the Repubs are now. Again, the consequences of elections.
They had the opportunity with Clinton at the SCOTUS and Circuit levels and declined to block almost any of them. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were both Clinton appointees, and Ginsburg was former lead council for the ACLU. Republicans could have easily opposed them in committee, sending their nominations to the floor of the Senate with a party line vote, but didn't, and there was no question of Republicans filibustering any Clinton nominee, ever. In fact, Clinton got more nominees through a Republican congress than Bush did through a Republican congress, thanks to Democrats' use of filibusters in way that had never been tried before. In addition, Democratic conduct towards Republican nominees has been nothing short of disgraceful. Show me one Democratic nominee who was subjected to the abuse that was heaped on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

ReaganForRus
05-01-2009, 04:54 PM
Wouldn't it be fantastic if judges were picked strictly for their ability, intellect and character and nobody gave a rat's ass about their feelings on pet issues? And I'm talking about both sides here.

If that is the case, Obama should nominate Robert Bork

Rockntractor
05-01-2009, 05:23 PM
Uhm, I said "sympathetic to gay rights," I did not say "a supporter of gay marriage." As to the Dems attempting to block Bush's appointees vs. the Repubs attempting to block Obama's, do you really believe that if they had the power to block, they wouldn't. The Dems were in a much better position when Bush was nominating justices than the Repubs are now. Again, the consequences of elections.
If I remember correctly republicans confirmed more than one liberal judge for slick willy. I will have to do some research.

http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/charts/federal-appts.shtml

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 06:29 PM
If I remember correctly republicans confirmed more than one liberal judge for slick willy. I will have to do some research.

http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/charts/federal-appts.shtml

Clinton had one nominee for the US District Court denied by the senate. All of his Circuit and Appeals court judges were confirmed, as were his two SCOTUS picks, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

OTOH, Wikipedia has a list of Bush's stalled, blocked or filibustered nominees



United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Rhode Island seat - William E. Smith (judgeship still open)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
New York seat - Loretta A. Preska (judgeship still open)
New York seat - Debra Ann Livingston (President Bush nominated her June 2006 and was finally confirmed by the Senate May 2007)
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
New Jersey seat - Shalom D. Stone (judgeship still open)
Pennsylvania seat - Gene E. K. Pratter, followed by Paul S. Diamond (judgeship still open)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Maryland seat - Claude Allen, followed by Rod J. Rosenstein (judgeship still open)
North Carolina seat - Terrence Boyle, followed by Robert J. Conrad (Boyle was nominated by President Bush in May 2001. After waiting six years, President Bush withdrew his nomination January 2007, making this 2001-2007 nomination the longest court of appeals nomination never processed by the Senate; Robert Conrad was nominated July 2007, but the Senate Democrats refused to process it; judgeship still open)
South Carolina seat - Steve A. Matthews (judgeship still open)
Virginia seat - William J. Haynes, II, followed by E. Duncan Getchell, followed by Glen E. Conrad (judgeship still open)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Mississippi seat - Charles W. Pickering, followed by Michael B. Wallace, followed by Leslie H. Southwick (Pickering was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew his nomination; there was so much Democratic resistance to Wallace's nomination that it too was withdrawn; and Southwick was only confirmed due to the efforts of Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein)
Texas seat - Priscilla Owen (Owen was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Michigan seat - Henry Saad, followed by Raymond Kethledge (Saad was filibustered by Senate Democrats; Kethledge was only confirmed after a deal in which failed Clinton nominee Helene White was allowed to replace Bush nominee Stephen J. Murphy III as a Sixth Circuit nominee)
Michigan seat - David W. McKeague (McKeague was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Michigan seat - Richard Allen Griffin (Griffin was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Michigan seat - Susan Bieke Neilson, followed by Stephen J. Murphy III, followed by failed Clinton nominee Helene White (Bieke was only confirmed three months prior to her death after a four year battle over her nomination; Murphy's nomination was replaced by that of failed Clinton nominee Helene White at the behest of Democratic Michigan senator Carl Levin)
Ohio seat - Jeffrey S. Sutton (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
Ohio seat - Deborah L. Cook (Senate Democrats refused to process her nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and she was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Indiana seat - Philip P. Simon (judgeship still open)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
California seat - Carolyn Kuhl (Kuhl was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew her nomination; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Sandra Segal Ikuta)
California seat - N. Randy Smith (judgeship still open; Smith was later confirmed to the Ninth Circuit when he was renominated for an Idaho seat)
Idaho seat - William Gerry Myers III (Myers was filibustered by Senate Democrats; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee N. Randy Smith)
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Oklahoma seat - James H. Payne, followed by Jerome A. Holmes (Payne withdrew his nomination after allegations made by liberal organizations created the appearance of "extraordinary circumstances" which would not have allowed his confirmation under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Jerome A. Holmes)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Alabama seat - William H. Steele, followed by William H. Pryor (Senate Democrats refused to process Steele's nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and his nomination was withdrawn; Pryor was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Miguel Estrada (Estrada was nominated May 2001, but was filibustered by Senate Democrats and withdrew his nomination after waiting over two years in September 2003; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Thomas B. Griffith, who was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
John Roberts (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
Janice Rogers Brown (Brown was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Brett Kavanaugh (Kavanaugh was initially stalled by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
Peter Keisler (President Bush nominated him June 2006, but Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the 109th and Democrat-controlled 110th Congress; judgeship still open)


In other words, Republican senates gave Clinton all but one of his appointees, but Democratic minorities in the senate were able to hamstring Bush repeatedly.

linda22003
05-01-2009, 07:47 PM
In other words, Republican senates gave Clinton all but one of his appointees, but Democratic minorities in the senate were able to hamstring Bush repeatedly.

I don't see Harriet Miers. Bush got hamstrung by his own SIDE on that one.

CueSi
05-01-2009, 09:54 PM
I don't see Harriet Miers. Bush got hamstrung by his own SIDE on that one.

Misdirection.

Meirs doesn't take away the fact that Bush was cock-blocked harder than an independent at a frat party.

~QC

Water Closet
05-01-2009, 10:45 PM
Clinton had one nominee for the US District Court denied by the senate. All of his Circuit and Appeals court judges were confirmed, as were his two SCOTUS picks, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

OTOH, Wikipedia has a list of Bush's stalled, blocked or filibustered nominees

In other words, Republican senates gave Clinton all but one of his appointees, but Democratic minorities in the senate were able to hamstring Bush repeatedly.

Uhm, do you include refusing to process as blocking?


- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
New Jersey seat - Robert Raymar (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Maryanne Trump Barry)
New Jersey seat - Stephen Orlofsky (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Michael Chertoff)
Pennsylvania seat - Robert J. Cindrich (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee D. Brooks Smith)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Maryland seat - Andre M. Davis (judgeship still open)
North Carolina seat - James A. Beaty, Jr., followed by James A. Wynn, Jr. (judgeship still open)
North Carolina seat - S. Elizabeth Gibson (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Allyson Kay Duncan)
Virginia seat - J. Rich Leonard (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Roger Gregory after being renominated by Bush in 2001)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Louisiana seat - Alston Johnson (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Edith Brown Clement)
Texas seat - Jorge Rangel, followed by Enrique Moreno (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Priscilla Owen)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Michigan seat - Helene White (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Richard A. Griffin; White was eventually confirmed to the Sixth Circuit when renominated by Bush in 2008)
Michigan seat - Kathleen McCree Lewis (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Susan Bieke Neilson)
Ohio seat - Kent Markus (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Jeffrey S. Sutton)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Iowa seat - Bonnie Campbell (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Michael J. Melloy)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
California seat - James Ware (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Kim McLane Wardlaw)
California seat - Barry Goode (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Carlos T. Bea)
Hawaii seat - James E. Duffy, Jr. (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Richard Clifton)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Colorado seat - James Lyons, followed by Christine Arguello (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Timothy M. Tymkovich; Arguello was eventually confirmed to a district court seat when nominated by Bush in 2008)

- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Florida seat - Charles "Bud" Stack (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Stanley Marcus)

- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Elena Kagan (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John G. Roberts, Jr.)
Allen Snyder (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Thomas B. Griffith)

linda22003
05-02-2009, 10:20 AM
Misdirection.

Meirs doesn't take away the fact that Bush was cock-blocked harder than an independent at a frat party.

~QC

I don't understand a single thing after the words "Bush was" in that sentence. :o

Odysseus
05-02-2009, 11:16 AM
Uhm, do you include refusing to process as blocking?

Don't you?

Water Closet
05-02-2009, 11:21 AM
Don't you?

Of course. Therefore given the number of Clinton judicial nominations (as per the list above) who were "blocked" by the Republicans (particularly Gramm and Hutchison), I don't quite understand your statement...


In other words, Republican senates gave Clinton all but one of his appointees, but Democratic minorities in the senate were able to hamstring Bush repeatedly.

Odysseus
05-02-2009, 12:42 PM
Of course. Therefore given the number of Clinton judicial nominations (as per the list above) who were "blocked" by the Republicans (particularly Gramm and Hutchison), I don't quite understand your statement...

And just how many of those were there?

Water Closet
05-02-2009, 01:07 PM
And just how many of those were there?

Check the list I provided. It surely invalidates your statement that the Republican Senate only blocked one of Clinton's appointments. That's what you get for reciting Hannity/Limbaugh talking points, as they obviously were using a different meaning of blocked.


In other words, Republican senates gave Clinton all but one of his appointees, but Democratic minorities in the senate were able to hamstring Bush repeatedly.

The party in power uses the power of the subcommittee to consider the appointment; the party out of power uses the fillibuster (assuming they can).