The Supreme Court of the United States - Justice Souter Retiring

At the outset I see no shame about admitting that this has been pretty much the least-expected political development in my imagination. I would have thought Stevens or Ginsberg would be the first to go under Obama, but apparently Justice Souter has decided that he would like to have a life after the Supreme Court.

It was actually kind of cute watching the President interrupt Robert Gibbs; the performance art value of Obama's appearance is hard to estimate, though. "Endearing chaos" is always a risky aspect.

I saw this yesterday when the leak hit the cable circuit, and still I have no real grasp on how this is going to go. Obama faces potentially as many as four possible selections during his term; this could get to be somewhat entertaining in the long run. But let's see, there's the political choice, the wife of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell; somebody on MSNBC floated Hillary's name, for heaven's sake; should it be a woman or Hispanic, or in that one prominent case both; is right to privacy a litmus test; what am I forgetting?

At any rate, here's an interesting political quandary: The GOP has a chance to redeem itself (to a certain degree) in the public's eyes by participating in a rational discussion of the nominee. Will they seize on issue-oriented outrage protests? Will they make a constitutional argument? Will that constitutional argument be valid?

Souter, although appointed by Poppy Bush, is being described as a regular member of the Court's liberal faction. The GOP has nothing to lose by playing a sober, rational hand in this one. And they have much, in terms of public stature, to gain.

Obama, for his part, need only not appoint Bill Ayers.

Update:

Add to that, Napolitano's name is now in the mix. I think the one thing I can genuinely hope for is that Obama avoids the high-profile candidates. Apparently, according to the early analysis, the fact that Sonia Sotomayor is currently a judge counts against her. That would seem to be a bit extreme. But if she's everything she's supposed to be and this obscure argument about the real world has that much influence, then perhaps this entire first tier should be thrown out. Granholm? Just say it's too political and move on. Deval Patrick? On MSNBC, Alan Dershowitz had a few remarks about their inclusion of Patrick among the leading candidates. Apparently, he's just not that great a lawyer.

Throw out the whole first tier, then. Dershowitz pushed Harold Koh and Charles Ogletree. Both good selections, but are law school deans and professors really going to meet that strange real world standard?

In other words, the early focus seems to be in order to keep the story percolating. None of it gives us any better idea of what Obama will actually do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now if a few Republican activist supremes could leave the bench....it would be great!

I for one will never forgive them for forcing George II down our throats and violating the sanctity of the Supreme Court of the United States to advance a political agenda.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect that he'll pick a center-left minority female. Probably Hispanic. Why not? It's a sound political move.

Activist, in this case, is a matter of perspective. There are a great many on the opposite side of the spectrum who see the more liberal members as activists.

Though, to your point, a great many of the conservative decisions do perplex me, almost as much as the liberal activism. But lets face it, on the real issues (like the ones where the Supreme Court ignores blatant wording altogether: liberals and conservatives alike), we will never see any meaningful change.

On the part of the conservative members going away anytime soon, it's doubtful. The conservative ones are the youngest ones. It's the liberals who have a foot in the grave (Ginsburg & Stevens). The youngsters like Roberts, Alito and Thomas, baring an act of Allah, aren't going anywhere and Scalia--the only "old" supreme is in good health and has made no indication of ever leaving.

Obama will have good opportunity to replace the two older liberals with like-minded individuals (I don't see them sticking around much longer). It will be up to the president who gets elected in 2012 to reshape the Court's political makeup.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are right it is a matter of perspective. Republicans have no issue with judical activism as long as it benefits their financial backers. And Democrats have no problem with judical activism when it benefits their supporters. I think the Democrats are more up front about it. They are not trying to hide or deceive anyone into thinking they do not support judicial activism whereas the Republicans are always complaining about it in one breath and preaching it in the next.

And as I said I will never forgive the supremes and what they did in 2000. They used to be an honorable insitution.

 

And of course, since they have a perspective, it's valid. In the wingnut universe, all perspectives are valid, and the balance is in the center of the perspectives.

They also believe, for example, that David Souter is a "liberal" Justice,

that the judges who overruled the Florida Supreme Court and meddled in a matter of State law, creating delays in a time-sensitive process which self-same delays were then invoked as a major factor in their decision, and thereby rendering moot actual considerations of electoral malfeasance and preventing the implementation of remedy while granting office to the loser of an electoral vote (both in the contest involved and nationally), were "not activist",

and that the talking snake theory of human creation should be presented in high school science classes as a perspective, for teenagers to evaluate and compare with other equally valid perspectives.

Because it's all a matter of perspective, see. There are no actual criteria for what an "activist" judge is, and no reality of behavior involved.

And the fact that we now routinely and publicly evaluate Supreme Court judges for their political Party positions, rather than their legal ideology and quality of thought, is the modern norm - thank you, Ronnie, for bringing us Atwater World.

 

I would have said that before he took office nad seemed to be making pretty reasonable cabinet appointments. But based on the way he's governed and the policies he's pursuing; I predict a far left nominee. Someone to the left of everyone else on the court at the very least.

Thank God for that. The Supreme Court is our only foothold on the federal government right now. It is interesting how that works. Due to lifetime appointments, the judiciary is almost always out of step with whoever is in power at the moment. This serves as a way to balance out the government and prevent us from going too far in any one direction.

 

just a note that most of these "liberal" or "left wing" justices were appointed by republicans.

 

Yeah, that's pretty ironic. I still remember when Bush appointed Souter. He had almost no record so there was nothing for congress to get up in arms about. Bush (or someone) called him a "stealth" nominee. I think it was John Sunnuno who vouched for him. Sadly (for us on the right), behind the "stealth" was a liberal.

That's one thing Bush got right. If past Republican presidents had picked nominees as effectively as Bush did, we'd have, I think, a seven judge majority right now. Clinton nominated Ginsberg and Breyer. Anyone else nominated by a Democrat?

 

Yeah sadly for you righties most judges actually didn't try and warp the law.

 

Compare the turnover rate of the US House with the Supreme Court - I recall somebody once pointing out that the English House of Lords - long hereditary and now largely "lifetime" appointments - historically has turned over faster than the US House.

And we see the view of "effective" that has governed the country for eight years, and publicly dominated it for thirty.

People actually pleased with the "effectiveness" of choices like Alito and Miers, Thomas and Rehnquist. People who feel they are represented by Scalia and Roberts. People who want their political positions represented on the Supreme Court, and the law interpreted - or reinterpreted - or simply botched and muddled - accordingly.

 

Sad but true. It's one reason I strongly oppose campaign finance reform. Well, I should say I now support it, but what I support is abolishing all the rules except one: Report all donations ASAP on the internet. Let the people decide if whatever donations you get somehow compromise you. What currently passes for campaign finance reform might be better described as incumbent protection. The harder you make it for challengers to raise money, the safer the incumbents are.

 

and considering the like 95% reelection rate we don't need to be helping them.

 

Exactly. So first step: repeal McCain's "reform" bill.

 

The supremes were not intended to be political. But the Republican Party as you note, has made them political and as a result greatly degraded the insitution. I used to look at the supremes as a pseudo monarch...stepping in to keep the things fair and balanced. Such is no longer the case.

I am hopping that Obama will find the youngest most liberal activist judge he can possibly find. And I hope all of the other judges on the court leave office as well so that Obama can appoint young liberal activist judges..let's see how Republicans like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If only there were some way to be sure an appointee would never stray from a rigid, preconceived ideology! To be sure that they had no critical thinking skills, but rather ruled like some sort of assembly line automaton. Yes, that is a shame.

 

Yeah, I liked it much better when the law was the law...versus the party is the law. And the supremes were there to intrepret the law justly and fairly...not to advance party power.

 

Fortunately, we are dealing with humans here. As a result, in spite of the best efforts of some to try and ensure certain outcomes, independent thought still creeps in. Times change, and laws (and interpretations of them), have to change as well.

 

I just hope that the Republicans pay for what they have done in spades. Maybe we should use Gitmo for the Republican ringleaders who brought us here. Maybe we can put the supremes that put George II in power on Gitmo for a few hundred years...or maybe we can send them to Iraq or Afganistan give them a gun and a few dangerous missions....put them on the front lines as we do with our children. I kind of like that idea...maybe this would help them have a better appreciation for the nation and for life and their actions...especially when they manipulate the law for political gain.

We need to get this country back on track and back to our roots.

 

Not exactly subtle considerations

Bill Maher's show was fascinating last night. He interviewed Dr. David Kessler about food, nutrition, health and society, and Middle East correspondent Richard Engel sat in as the late guest. But the primary panel was all of Fareed "Willem Dafoe" Zakaria and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and rather quite entertaining. It's amazing how insecure Frank is; after a while, one might start to feel sorry for him. (Seriously, he's driven by some inner loneliness; it's kind of scary.)

They did take a moment to discuss the idea of Souter's timing, that the retiring justice held out despite growing dissatisfaction so that he could be replaced by, well, Anybody But Bush. On the one hand, this seems presumptuous. To the other, if we consider the story about Bush v. Gore, and consider that he has always felt alienated in Washington culture, perhaps there's something to be said for it; he did stick around this long. I don't think that's fairly a fact yet, but it is at least a fair question. Justice O'Connor made no secret that she was glad she was being replaced by the Bush administration, so we know it's not beyond the realm of reasonable consideration.

Meanwhile, no news is, pretty much, good news. After all, right now it's just speculation, like FOX News reminding that Sen. Specter's defection will help the GOP block any nominee Obama brings forward.

Really, though ... the GOP isn't going to really go that route, are they? Really? I don't think, if someone sincerely told me as late as ... well, at least as late as Inauguration Day, that the GOP would be literally dead before the 2012 election, that I could have done anything other than chuckle affectionately at wishful thinking. But, literally, if the Republicans choose the contrarian route for its own sake, we might be able to start counting the nails.

I mean, and to mix metaphors irresponsibly, is there really a partisan equivalent of, "All in"?
___________________

Notes:

FOX News. "Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee to Replace Souter". May 1, 2009. FOXnews.com. Accessed May 2, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ublicans-block-souters-potential-replacement/

 

And we all know how well your predictions have turned out before

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah I mean its not like the supreme court would do something conversational and revolutionary, like abolish the legality of segregation, give women the right to abort or in a controversial partisan vote would choose a president that would drive this country and his party into ruins?

Aside for their party relegated to cleaning sewage that all your going to get.