Souter to retire from Supreme Court

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=103694193

 

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

 

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

 

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

 

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.

 

Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

 

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

 

The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

 

Obama was elected with strong support from women.

 

An Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.

[Balta1701]

You beat me to the post because Ray Allen just made a 3.

[Balta1701]

Btw, what a week.

 

Swine Flu

100 days

Arlen Specter

Souter

Bulls/Celtics

[Rex Kickass]

I know. Kinda crazy. I think we could see two or three Obama appointments by the midterm elections.

 

[Balta1701]

I know. Kinda crazy. I think we could see two or three Obama appointments by the midterm elections.

Isn't Stevens like shooting for the longest-serving-justice record or something like that?

 

And here's the question now...how rapidly will the up or down vote, no filibusters except for the worst of the worst nominee rule go out the window?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Give me John Edwards.. oh wait... never mind.

[BigSqwert]

Here's what Redstate.org's Erick Erickson thinks:

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Will GOP members flip-flop on Judiciary Filibuster:

many of the Republicans who could play an obstructionist role are on the record decrying the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees. As collected by Media Matters Action Network, here are a few of those choice quotes that seem likely to be mentioned when (rather, if) a feisty Supreme Court fight emerges in the weeks or months ahead.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT -- and Judiciary Committee member)

"All we are a

s

k

ing i

s

the 214-year tradition of the

S

enate that judicial nominee

s

not be filibu

s

tered be followed..." [

s

enate Floor

S

peech, 4/27/05]

 

Chuc

k

Gra

s

s

ley (R-IA -- and Judiciary Committee member)

"Hi

s

tory ha

s

proven the wi

s

dom of having the Pre

s

ident place judge

s

with the

s

upport of the majority of the

S

enate.... The current ob

s

truction led by

S

enate Democratic leader

s

threaten

s

that balance. It'

s

time to ma

k

e

s

ure all judge

s

receive a fair vote on the

S

enate floor." [Gra

s

s

ley.

S

enate.gov, "Tal

k

ing Judge

s

to Death," 5/8/05]

 

John Cornyn (R-TX -- and Judiciary Committee member)

"I believe, about the proce

s

s

of ree

s

tabli

s

hing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 year

s

in the

S

enate, that would

s

ay any Pre

s

ident'

s

nominee

s

, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the

s

upport of a majority of the

S

enate, will get an up-or-down vote in the

S

enate.

S

enator

s

who believe the

s

e nominee

s

s

hould be confirmed can vote for them and tho

s

e who believe they

s

hould not be confirmed can vote again

s

t them." [

s

enate Floor

S

peech, 5/24/05]

 

Mitch McConnell (R-

K

Y --

S

enate Minority Leader)

"Becau

s

e of the unprecedented ob

s

truction of our Democratic colleague

s

, the Republican conference intend

s

to re

s

tore the principle that, regardle

s

s

of party, any Pre

s

ident'

s

judicial nominee

s

, after full debate, de

s

erve a

s

imple up-or-down vote." [

s

enate Floor

S

peech, 5/19/05]

 

My guess is Mitch McConnell will absolutely flip-flop.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Cknolls]

Will any nomination be referred to as a liberal jurist?......Or will they be centrists?.......I think I know the answer......

[Rex Kickass]

Will any nomination be referred to as a liberal jurist?......Or will they be centrists?.......I think I know the answer......

 

Because they probably are. We are a center-left country after all.

 

And because the truth is, they may be to the left on social issues, but I'd wager Obama will continue the proud tradition of nominating justices with a proud tradition of protecting money.

[Cknolls]

Is this a good example:

 

 

2003—Two years after being nominated to the Fifth Circuit, the eminently qualified Texas supreme court justice Priscilla Richman Owen encounters another step in the Democrats’ unprecedented campaign of obstruction against President Bush’s judicial nominees. The first of five Senate cloture votes on her nomination fails to obtain the necessary 60 votes for approval, as only two of 49 Democrats vote for cloture. Owen’s nomination is finally confirmed more than two years later (and more than four years from her initial nomination)—on May 25, 2005

 

 

No. I do not believe they will do anything close to what was practiced here and in many other cases involving Bush appointees.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There needs to be a mandatory IRS check before the nomination.

[lostfan]

Will any nomination be referred to as a liberal jurist?......Or will they be centrists?.......I think I know the answer......

He could nominate a centrist and you (conservatives) would still call the nominee a liberal judicial activist.

[Balta1701]

He could nominate a centrist and you (conservatives) would still call the nominee a liberal judicial activist.

What we need is a Roberts...someone who can play the centrist in his confirmation hearings and make all the supposed moderates swoon but who gets on the court and instantly turns in to the farthest-left guy on there.

[NorthSideSox72]

He could nominate a centrist and you (conservatives) would still call the nominee a liberal judicial activist.

 

Yup, and the other way around too.

 

What we need is a Roberts...someone who can play the centrist in his confirmation hearings and make all the supposed moderates swoon but who gets on the court and instantly turns in to the farthest-left guy on there.

 

I actually liked the Roberts nomination, and mostly still do now. He's been pretty much what he said he'd be.

 

Alito, on the other hand, was and is a disaster.

 

[lostfan]

Yeah I don't really have any issues with Roberts.

[bmags]

Ugh, Alito and Thomas.

 

Haven't been a fan of SCOTUS since the 90s. I'm a Potter Stewart man, myself.

[Chet Lemon]

Ugh, Alito and Thomas.

 

Haven't been a fan of SCOTUS since the 90s. I'm a Potter Stewart man, myself.

 

Potter Stewart was a king. My favorite dissent of his was when he agreed individual state's could legally prohibit the use of contraceptives. That was true states' rights; not at all like the so-called states' rights people of today.

[bmags]

Anything dealing with private parts saw some ridiculously interesting opinions from Stewart.

 

That's my main problem with Thomas and Alito, yeah, they are the most boneheaded, and I disagree with them on every decision, but at least Scalia has these fantastic dissenting opinions and opinions in general, Thomas and Alito are just boring. Thomas might be illiterate for all I know.

 

SO here's a debate question, dudes and ladies:

 

It's come up before, do you think this next supreme court justice should be a judge? And if not, since we are more familiar with non-judicial nominees, who would be your pick?

[NorthSideSox72]

Anything dealing with private parts saw some ridiculously interesting opinions from Stewart.

 

That's my main problem with Thomas and Alito, yeah, they are the most boneheaded, and I disagree with them on every decision, but at least Scalia has these fantastic dissenting opinions and opinions in general, Thomas and Alito are just boring. Thomas might be illiterate for all I know.

 

SO here's a debate question, dudes and ladies:

 

It's come up before, do you think this next supreme court justice should be a judge? And if not, since we are more familiar with non-judicial nominees, who would be your pick?

I think it absolutely should be a judge.

 

[kapkomet]

It should be the best person for the job.

 

I HATE it that it "has to be a woman, black, woman, hispanic, woman, minority, did I say some kind of minority"? That's bulls***. Pick the best person for the job from the legal perspective. But, as always, it won't be.

 

[Balta1701]

It should be the best person for the job.

 

I HATE it that it "has to be a woman, black, woman, hispanic, woman, minority, did I say some kind of minority"? That's bulls***. Pick the best person for the job from the legal perspective. But, as always, it won't be.

Just last week, the Supreme Court took up a case of a 14 year old girl who was strip searched looking for the evil that is ibuprofen. So you had 8 men and 1 woman sitting there hearing about this little girl having to take her clothes off while other people watched. The one woman was actually basically the only one with any perspective on it, and it just went over the heads of the rest.

 

There are what, probably 500 or so people, maybe 250, in the country who you could easily argue are qualified. But when you have a court that only represents 25% of America...that court isn't going to have the perspective on other issues that by all accounts it should.

[southsider2k5]

Just last week, the Supreme Court took up a case of a 14 year old girl who was strip searched looking for the evil that is ibuprofen. So you had 8 men and 1 woman sitting there hearing about this little girl having to take her clothes off while other people watched. The one woman was actually basically the only one with any perspective on it, and it just went over the heads of the rest.

 

There are what, probably 500 or so people, maybe 250, in the country who you could easily argue are qualified. But when you have a court that only represents 25% of America...that court isn't going to have the perspective on other issues that by all accounts it should.

 

I thought the Supreme Court was about interpreting laws, not perspective on issues? I thought the issues were supposed to be decided by the legislative branch?

[Balta1701]

I thought the Supreme Court was about interpreting laws, not perspective on issues? I thought the issues were supposed to be decided by the legislative branch?

Then it's time to tear up that old Constitution and replace the vagueness of so much of it with a 300000 page specific document spelling out in exacting detail what should be done in every single case. Otherwise, there's going to be interpretation and perspective in everything...because what one person considers to be a vital right may be something that 8 other men simply can't understand.

[kapkomet]

Then it's time to tear up that old Constitution and replace the vagueness of so much of it with a 300000 page specific document spelling out in exacting detail what should be done in every single case. Otherwise, there's going to be interpretation and perspective in everything...because what one person considers to be a vital right may be something that 8 other men simply can't understand.

Everything's all touchy, feely, emotion. The constitution is not supposed to be a touchy, feely document. It is set up to govern our country, not tackle the emotional aspect of every goddamn problem that faces our country. It's a f***ing insult to sit there and say "8 men can't understand". Do you know how moronish that statement is? If there was a law broken for that poor girl, then let the law stand for itself, not the emotion of it. That's absolutely the problem with liberals and really pisses me off. Sure, I care. Sure I want justice. But not based on some emotional outlook. If we govern every issue based on emotion, it's no wonder there's the politicization there is, because you cannot fairly judge law that way.

 

In a court setting, the lawyer's job is to make people understand the emotion behind it and the related legal arguments to those emotions, if you will. That includes "8 men" on the Surpreme Court. Their job is then to interpret the law, not their damn emotions behind the law. PERIOD. Everything else is a blatent disrespect of our Constitution.