« Let's Make PPIP Fun! | Home | Ha'aretz Predicts Israeli Attack on Iran: "Is Netanyahu Bringing Israel Closer to a 'Second Holocaust'? »
Justice Souter to Retire
The news just keeps breaking these days. NPR reports that Supreme Court Justice David Souter has informed the White House of his intention to retire and return to New Hampshire. He'll remain on the court until his replacement is confirmed.
What do you think? Who do you expect President Obama will put in there? We don't know a lot yet, but never too soon to start talking!
Advertisement
Needs to be some one REALLY left. They keep saying the court is "split" but what's really going on is that the court has 4 extreme right wingers, 4 left of center types and Kennedy. We need some extreme lefties to balance the court.
Also... these guys are all way too old. Seriously... the court should have some one younger on it. It's ridiculous for the whole nation to have issues of civil rights decided by AARP members.
April 30, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
Cass Sunstein,
Bob Reich, or
Bill Maher (let's legalize that pot for Libertine!)
PS - Anyone know of any Bookie Websites listing odds?
April 30, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cass Sunstein isn't a liberal in the classic sense, and I wonder if his marriage to Samantha Power would be grist for the mill, given her issues during the campaign.
My fantasy pick - Jonathan Turley, talking head extraordinaire on MSNBC.
April 30, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Turley would be a dream pick for the SC. One can only dream/hope.
May 1, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turley never has a kind word for Obama. While I agree with much of what he says about torture, state secrets, etc., I also think he manages to avoid anything good that Obama does.
I can't see him being considered for the Supreme Court.
May 1, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah know my fellow Sox fan...I'd actually prefer to see that get resolved by the states by either ballot initiatives or by legislation. People who oppose legalization/decriminalization would be able to bitch too much if the courts do it.
But thanks for thinking of me on the issue. Does my reputation precede me that much, lol?
=D
April 30, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime Libertine... :) I realized after watching THE WIRE and the David Simon interview on Bill Moyers that it's time to speak out about legalizing pot, and de-criminalizing all the rest.
May 1, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the expected response time of the US Congress, it seems likely Franken will join the party in time for a deciding cloture vote. GOP heads-a-poppin' everywhere!
April 30, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a comment so much as a question. I know that Souter has been relatively liberal on many issues for a Republican appointee. Especially after the first few years of his appointment.
Are there any issues where he has still, recently, continued to vote with Scalia et. al.?
I'm looking for the issues where an Obama appointment might be expected to make a difference.
April 30, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Souter voted contrary to Scalia on virtually every major issue.
April 30, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see.
April 30, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. This is just holding our own, as it were.
May 1, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. The right pick could change the chemistry and bring new energy to the moderate side of the court.
May 1, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The important thing is for Obama to think BIG. Now is the time to put a real progressive on the Supreme Court.
There are no liberals on this Supreme Court. Time to fix that.
April 30, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Souter is a solid liberal. It would have been better if Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy retired. Poor Souter. It really must suck to have to work with Scalia and Thomas.
April 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to see Scalia and/or Thomas gone from the court. Horrible judges, horrible men. But Bush's choices of Roberts & Alito aren't any better. They are nicer on the surface, but have taken terrible stands on cases. The school desegration (bussing?) case right after Roberts and Alito started was a complete reversal and a sick twisting of the law.
May 1, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope Souter is leaving to write a tell-all book about the shenanigans the conservative block pulls!
April 30, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction: Sonia Sotomayor
April 30, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
April 30, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too old. Only 12 years younger than Souter.
May 1, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
but souter is retiring young.
late 40s to mid-50s is about what to expect. and the difference between a nominee in their late 40s and a nominee in their mid-50s is negligible.
May 1, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It’ll never happen. She’s not the right one. But in a movie I can imagine, I see Anita Hill as the nominee - Specter, now a Dem, having to swallow that in public on tv - all the programs reviewing the old tapes, Specter having to apologize to her. Then she goes to the Court. And somehow Thomas has to resign in shame.
Nice movie in my head…
Lots of payback!
April 30, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely fantasy. Too bad it can never happen. Clarence Thomas -- a major reason I have no respect for Specter.
May 1, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anita Hill may be going to far...but how about Lani Guinier? She is a solid liberal on race issues, and the utter falsity of the charges against her during her nomination for the civil rights post in Justice under Clinton have been thoroughly documented.
May 1, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would prefer a youngish nominee so that he/she can remain on the Court for a long time.
April 30, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You thought the republics would fight like hell to keep Franken out of the senate, didn't you? After Specter's switch and now a Supreme Court seat up for grabs this week, they're going to go ape shit. Expect a huge and stupid move any moment.
I'm making popcorn!
April 30, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got the raisinettes!
May 1, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The end of June is only eight weeks away!
April 30, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has turned out to be a really bad week to be a Republican.
And it ends with... May Day! Happy May Day, comrades!
April 30, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
rynato,
lets give them another bad week;
Obama nominates Al Sharpton to the Supreme Court!
May 3, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama will continue to press for bipartisanship and select a nomination he considers to be a moderate. Someone who gets along with others and doesn't want to focus on mistakes of past administrations. Someone whom at least a few Republicans will support. The rest of the Democrats will gladly vote for whomever Obama chooses. Everyone's happy. Well, except for the malcontents.
April 30, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Bill Clinton, who was considered VERY centrist, put 2 VERY liberal justices, in Ginsburg and Breyer, on the court. I see no reason for Obama to put another Anthony Kennedy type on the court...and if that makes me a malcontent I have no problem with that label.
April 30, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, neither Ginsburg nor Breyer was considered particularly liberal when they were appointed. Republican Orrin Hatch even called Ginsburg a moderate, although compared to most of her current colleagues, she's pretty liberal. But Breyer has long been a left-centrist.
May 1, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think both turned out, thankfully, to be more liberal than initially advertised. Breyer in fact is Scalia's main intellectual protagonist on the court. Would I like to see another William Brennan (who by the way was another Republican nominee...Eisenhower) or Thurgood Marshall on the court? Sure, undoubtedly...but I'd be more than happy with another Ginsburg or Breyer. You never know how a nominee will end up turning out...'a funny thing happened on the way to the forum' scenario often plays out.
May 1, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Breyer nor Ginsburg is "very liberal". There hasn't been a "very liberal" justice since Brennan and Marshall left.
May 1, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ginsburg was the attorney in the Frontiero case in the 1970s, which was one of the lead cases for women's equality. In fact, the court decision gave women the strongest presumption of equality under the 14th Amendment, a presumption since watered down. Hence, despite Hatch's statement, Ginsburg was clearly a liberal. Breyer, on the other hand, was considered a big buddy of corporations.
May 1, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as the nominee has Council on Foreign Relations, Wall St, and Neocon ties, I'll be happy. And Rahm will be happy to take credit for the nomination.
April 30, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Family, too.
April 30, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the players well enough to make an informed decision on whom I'd like to see as a replacement. The one thing I know is that I would like it to be a liberal legal heavyweight to go along with Breyer and also someone who is relatively young and could spend decades on the court. The conservatives have 3 legal heavyweights in Scalia, Roberts and Alito. Unfortunately the only justices rumored to be leaving are all liberal...Souter (who just announced), Ginsburg and Stevens.
Just as an aside I find irony that 2 of the courts most 'liberal' members were appointed by Republicans...John Paul Stevens and David Souter. Souter has done an outstanding job on the court and I for one am very sad to see him go.
April 30, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand, there's never been a Hispanic justice on SCOTUS.
On the other hand, Obama doesn't necessarily feel the need to play racial politics; he has that luxury as a black man and it's also evidenced in his past.
It would be hard for senators to defeat the first Hispanic nominated to SCOTUS but on the other hand Obama is in such a strong position that he could save the Hispanic nomination for the inevitable replacement of Stevens or Ginsburg.
April 30, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Jefferson Clinton? Floyd First Amendment? Jerry Brown? Eric Holder??
April 30, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holder was a judge many years ago and left to go into the DOJ under Clinton. Word was that he really really didn't like being a judge (the word from people I knew who actually knew him!). So unless he's changed, it ain't going to happen. And I'm glad because I think he's going to do a terrific job as AG.
May 1, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. It should be a woman.
2. She should be young enough to serve for 30 years.
3. There is currently only one Justice from west of the Mississippi.
4. There has never been an Hispanic Justice.
5. None of the current Justices has ever been elected to office.
6. None of the current liberal justices has a background in labor law--they're all Ivy League academics.
7. The last member of the Supreme Court to serve in Congress was Hugo Black, who retired in 1971.
8. The last cabinet member to serve on the Supreme Court was Robert Jackson, who died in 1954.
Therefore,
Justice Hilda Solis.
April 30, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm all for getting back to a supreme court that isn't made up entirely of judges and law professors, but i think the unofficial requirement of a law degree is here to stay. i won't be surprised if obama picks a politico, but i will be surprised if he picks someone without a jd.
May 1, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"President Obama will continue to press for bipartisanship and select a nomination he considers to be a moderate."
I disagree with this. Obama sounded frustrated with the Republicans last night, he has huge political capital, and I believe on something this big, he will go for broke. I really respect Justice Souter. I think Scalia, Roberts (who I'm convinced is a moron after the swearing in of Obama) and Thomas are enough to make everyone else on the court retire. Imagine listening to those idiots at work every day.
April 30, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has only done one thing that was not a reach out towards bipartisanship, and that was telling the Repubs that the health care plan will be passed with the budget reconciliation rules. So, I'm not convinced he will even consider what we would call a liberal for the court. My money is on a centrist, who is more conservative than liberal. Who that would be I have no idea. At one time I thought it would be Hillary, but she is doing too well as secretary of state to lose her there.
May 1, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's appointed Eric Holder to AG.
I think we can draw a clear distinction between what Obama is trying to do legislatively and what he's done with his personnel appointments. I haven't seen him shy away from any fights on that front.
That's not to say he'll appoint an ultra-liberal. After all, Obama himself is a moderate. He'll just pick whoever he feels is the best pick.
May 1, 2009 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whomever Obama picks, he/she should have a strong enough personality to deal with the loudmouth jerks on the right. Souter's problem is that he was too much of an introvert, and couldn't handle it.
May 1, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hongju_Koh
May 1, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like that choice Dan. He seems to have solid liberal legal credentials, is relatively young, seems very scholarly, and would be the first Asian-American on the court. I would be VERY happy with a pick like that.
May 1, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. My feelings exactly. He strikes me as Obama's kind of guy. And it would be hard for the Republicans to shoot him down.
May 1, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too old.
May 1, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we are going to get anybody significantly younger than that.
May 1, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Dan. Plus being in his mid 50's could mean 25-30 years for him on the court. Don't judge the length of a justice's career by Souter...Souter is retiring at a VERY young age comparatively speaking as far as justices go.
May 1, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
mid-50s is not too old. it is only on the old end of the ideal range. if obama can find a slamdunk in someone in their mid-40s, great. but late 40s to mid-50s is more likely. and perfectly acceptable.
May 1, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do like the suggestion of Hilda Solis, however I'd be much more excited to see Lawrence Lessig nominated.
May 1, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Solis is a non-starter - no law degree. But Lessig is the right direction: A liberal activist lawyer might drive the conservatives on the court to retire.
May 1, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need a law degree to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
May 1, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. the last appointed supreme court justice without a law degree served for one year in 1941.
2. Barack Obama was a law school professor and he is unlikely to appoint someone with less qualifications than his students.
May 1, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
and like i was saying upthread, picking someone with extensive political experience (as opposed to judicial/academic experience) will itself be an 'innovation' given the court's recent history. that alone presents a political obstacle course. but picking someone without a law degree amounts to a political roadblock.
one reason (among several) that a law degree isn't a constitutional requirement is that until the 1900s lawyers and judges were trained by apprenticeship rather than academically. things have changed. i don't think we'll ever see another supreme court justice without a juris doctor.
May 1, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lessig seems way too much of a political activist for Obama's first pick. I think no-drama Obama is going to be looking for solid left-leaning jurist with this first one, not a left-leaning political activist.
May 1, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is going to be the lastest parlour game. What's the line in Vegas?
May 1, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama's favorable rating would give him the room to pick a real progressive, if he himself were a real progressive. but alas, he's a centrist. and i imagine he would prefer to horde his political capital to ride out the shitstorm that his four years will continue to be.
May 1, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say pick someone who is from the same state as Justice Kennedy with some similarities in background. Maybe a Stanford Grad even.
This would make convincing Kennedy to side w/ the left part of the bench a little easier and almost like nominating 2 justices.
May 1, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh: "More seriously, this is a very bad development for the GOP; and quite a good one for the Democrats."
I'm not sure why this is either particularly good or bad for Republicans. I imagine they'll filibuster in lockstep against anyone BHO puts up, and BHO will be in the position of having to placate self-styled moderate assh*les like Bayh. (I'd have rathered Souter waited 'til 2011, after the Dems pick up another 4-7 Senate seats.)
y/n?
May 1, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans are going to filibuster and call anyone who doesn't want to repeal Roe/Wade a liberal extremist. That's what they do. So it's about keeping the Demo caucus together. Though he may be more likely to peel off a couple of women Senators from Maine if he nominates a woman.
But it's not so much about how far left they are as it is about how well known their positions are. The one thing Bush did right (from his point of view) was in finding two very conservative judges who could pretend, during the hearings, to be much more moderate than they were. There's no reason why Obama couldn't do the same thing from the liberal side.
May 1, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama can find someone who has never talked about, or EVEN THOUGHT about Roe v Wade, like Thomas. I'm sure there are plenty of adults out there who can play just as dumb as the last several picks who all denied having a single formed thought on the issues of the day.
May 1, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans are going to filibuster and call anyone a liberal extremist.
May 1, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw:
My choice: GORE!!!!
May 1, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much too old. Would never take it anyway.
May 1, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Appoint one of the two Senators from Maine. They're moderate enough, the Republicans would have to vote yes and the Democratic governor of Maine would appoint another Dem to the Senate. Machiavelli would rise from his grave to congratulate Obama.
May 1, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Republicans would LOVE to trade a senator for another seat on the Supreme Court.
May 1, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO MODERATES. Choose a freaking progressive, Toobin said it best, Obama will more than likely get ANYONE he puts up there. A minority female, with progressive credentials to boot.
May 1, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's right to a point. I don't think he'll appoint someone already known for creating controversy. But if he does the same sort of thing that Bush did - find someone very progressive and advertise him/her as a moderate - he should be fine.
May 1, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jennifer Granholm.
You read it here first.
May 1, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. She's Canadian
2. She worked as a tour guide at Universal Studios
3. She's too old
May 1, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
you are ridiculous. 50 is too old??!
i will now stop taking anything you say seriously.
May 1, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
She was born in Canada but is an American citizen. And Supreme Court Justices, unlike the President, need not have been born in the USA.
May 1, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad that an excellent appeals court judge who would be confirmed in an instant is unlikely to be considered because of his age -- David Tatel. Definitely liberal but incredibly fair-minded and absolutely brilliant. It would be hard for the Republicans to attack him because he's blind! Everyone thought he would get the next opening during the Clinton administration, but it never came to that. And unfortunately, he's now in his late 60's -- I'm sure the Obama administration would like someone younger who will be there for a few decades!
May 1, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing Obama the pick will NOT be a white man. The pick will probably be a female, minority, or both. Also, Obama tends to be a cautious guy so expect his pick NOT to be a liberal but a progressive moderate.
I truly think that Obama enjoys portraying himself as a progressive who is nonideological and pragmatic so it will be someone who isn't an "in your face liberal".
My prediction: Welcome Justice Sotomayor!
May 1, 2009 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why anyone thinks that whoever the President nominates will not be treated by the Rethugs and the MSM as if he nominated Michael Moore, Michael Schiavo or Osama bin Laden...or Kathleen Sebelius.
The bobbleheads will fan out calling the nominee a typical partisan choice, and poor dumb cute Anderson will choose a little coffee klatch and start his egg timer, making sure that 50% of the time the nominee is slimed.
May 1, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice rundown of the likely short list....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gImiXOF6nt1VkenWHlNkXnNwQHJgD97TCQB80
May 1, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was bad news in this sense: Obama will have to replace three liberals (Souter, Ginsburg, Stephens). Even if we like the first choice, there will be more pressure to compromise on the second and third. Conservatives will argue that it's only fair for at least one out of three to be to their liking, and Obama is receptive to that kind of argument. In the end it will be a net loss.
May 1, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the repubs keep up their nasty ways throughout his term(s), for example NEVER voting in favor of anything at all that he proposes, I really doubt that he would try to appease them on a third Supreme Court choice. In fact, if they keep up this obstruction, their numbers will dwindle to the point it doesn't matter WHAT they want.
I'm just hoping Scalia and Thomas decide to "spend more time with their families" within the next 5 or so years.
May 1, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words: Bill Clinton
May 1, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two more: No thanks
May 1, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no reason to kowtow to the Village and nominate a moderate.
The Republicans will smear anyone Obama picks as a Communist, so we might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and pick someone who's actually Left.
P.S. I notice that spell-check here still does not recognize "Obama." Sigh.
May 2, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If--not that he will-- he selected Lani Guinier, it would really piss off the G.O.P.. She has the attributes he said he was interested.
May 2, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader,
if not him,
a 45 year old Liberal Hispanic Woman.
May 3, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anita Hill...Anita Baker.... or Anita Bryant.
May 3, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink