Justice Souter to Retire

[quote name='Magus8472']http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

Unfortunately we're still in for quite a bit more of Justice Thomas.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Most would have expected Stevens or Ginsburg would be the first to retire. Hopefully Obama will choose someone center-left (since he's certainly going to choose someone at least a little left) who will vote to overturn Kelo v. New London (Souter was the deciding vote).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fascinating. Bring back Harriet Miers for a second round of laffs.[/QUOTE]

You disappoint us, myke. No Robert Bork crack?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Demographically speaking, what are we looking at replacement wise?[/QUOTE]

A woman.
 
Jennifer Granholm is my bet. She was high on the list to replace Ginsburg. If she gets that mole chopped off she's got it in the bag.
 
Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon of 3 possibilities: Sotomeyer (sp?), Wood, and Kagan. All are supposedly extremely competent. Kagan is an attorney, not a judge.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']:rofl:[/quote]

Am I missing something? Did I misspell something? Heaven forbid I misspell something ON THE INTERNET!

Another question: Why do people think the Republicans are going to try to filibuster this nominee? They didn't try to shoot down Ginsburg when she was up for a nomination, and I don't see them trying here.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Another question: Why do people think the Republicans are going to try to filibuster this nominee? They didn't try to shoot down Ginsburg when she was up for a nomination, and I don't see them trying here.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't heard that was going to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me. The Republicans have looked mighty disposable for the last few months and they will probably do the whole rally-round-the-pro-life thing as a way to try to pull themselves back together. Abortion rights seems to be the only thing really talked about that gains any traction in the hearings anyway and lord knows those fools running the Republicans will seize on Roe as a red meat issue.

I'm genuinely hoping to be surprised here and will be looking for Republicans that don't give in to the temptation to be a shithead. Specifically Cantor and Boner.

Bill Clinton sent a list of names to Orrin Hatch and asked how he felt about them. When he got the go ahead for Ginsburg, he nominated her. Perhaps Bush's handling of his nominees (and by that I mean being a backstabbing fucking prick that tried to smash the Democrats with his picks) has made the Dems a little less willing to deal this time around and that will increase the chances the Repubs bitch about the pick.
 
Why do people think that?

They're the fucking Republicans. That's the only tactic they have at their disposal as the minority party.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why do people think that?

They're the fucking Republicans. That's the only tactic they have at their disposal as the minority party.[/quote]

They think it'll happen because Obama, as well as Clinton and Biden and the Democrats tried to filibuster Alito, and to a lesser extent, Roberts (there was talk before he was going to be Chief Justice that it'd happen)
 
[quote name='KingBroly']They think it'll happen because Obama, as well as Clinton and Biden and the Democrats tried to filibuster Alito, and to a lesser extent, Roberts (there was talk before he was going to be Chief Justice that it'd happen)[/QUOTE]
Alito was tainted by the Meirs thing and Roberts swore up and down that he saw no need to overturn precedent without extremely compelling circumstances, a question asked by Democrats over and over and effing over during confirmation. The Dems threatened veto because they didn't believe him.

Shockingly, he has been "surprisingly" willing to part with precedent at times. Not a particularly desirable trait in a Chief.

God bless the unelected and (virtually) unimpeachable.

And some fun, cause you know it's out there:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in a written statement of his own, said, "I trust the president will choose a nominee for the upcoming vacancy based on their experience and evenhanded reading of the law, and not their partisan leanings or ability to pass litmus tests."
Click to expand...
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, called her "an outstanding lawyer" and predicted, "at the end of the day, the support in the Senate for Harriet Miers in the Republican conference in the Senate is going to be rock solid."
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part in the 2nd quote that talked about an evenhanded reading of the law or nonpartisanship.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why do people think that?

They're the fucking Republicans. That's the only tactic they have at their disposal as the minority party.[/QUOTE]

They barely have that tactic at this point, if they have it at all.

But I digress. I think as long as Obama uses this criteria to select a nominee, the Republicans will be opposed:

Q He was talking to I believe this was the Detroit Free Press editorial board meeting in -- this past October, and he was talking about the kind of Justice that he would want on the board and he said, somebody who doesn't think they should be making law, and then -- but then he went on to say someone who recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice: the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who shakes things up -- I like that. (Laughter.) But it almost sounds like --



MR. GIBBS: That mythical person has approval in this room. (Laughter.)



Q It almost sounds like the definition of an activist judge, somebody who's going in there to protect particular classes of people.



MR. GIBBS: No, I think it's --



Q And how does that square with saying it's not somebody who wants to make law?



MR. GIBBS: Well, because as I just said a minute ago, you -- I think you have to -- I think you have to understand the cases that you're hearing and understand the way those cases affect the individuals that are involved and the ramifications that those cases have. It's understanding, as I said a minute ago, what it's like -- having a diversity of experience to understand exactly what it's like when somebody comes seeking justice in front of the courts based on a grievance that they have.



Again, as I said, understanding, for instance, somebody like Lilly Ledbetter, who -- you know, keep in mind what the Supreme Court determined, that she missed her window to bring a grievance about fair pay because she would have had to have done so -- I forget the exact number of days, 120 or 180 days. Well, surprisingly, when one discriminates against your pay, they don't normally give you 120 to 180 day heads up that you're being paid markedly less than your male counterparts are for the duration of your activities.



So I think having a Justice that understands the ramifications of what each of those means is important and something that the President believes in.
Click to expand...

As long as Obama selects someone in this manner instead of valuing judges who merely interpret the law and leaving the politcking to the politicians, most/all Republicans are not going to be supportive. OTOH, I think a decent number of Senate Republicans would go along with a mainstream nominee who did not have this kind of dismissive attitude of the law and inflated sense of self in that regard.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As long as Obama selects someone in this manner instead of valuing judges who merely interpret the law and leaving the politcking to the politicians, most/all Republicans are not going to be supportive. OTOH, I think a decent number of Senate Republicans would go along with a mainstream nominee who did not have this kind of dismissive attitude of the law and inflated sense of self in that regard.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how Gibbs's statements and your critiques match up. What part is dismissive of the law? What part lends to an "inflated sense of self"?

Our Supreme Court has never been more homogeneous than it is right now. This was the first time the court was packed with every jurist a Federal Court of Appeals judge. That's not how it should be done.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Demographically speaking, what are we looking at replacement wise?[/QUOTE]

http://contexts.org/thickculture/2009/05/01/white-privelege-example-623/

How many instances have we had? You do know that of all 108 members of the Supreme Court, 104 have been White males? So why is the 109th case going to be different? It gets back to this strange presumption that black people are reflexively in-group oriented whereas White people have no such in-group loyalties and are completely free and clear of any race-based bias. This clarity allows them to make dispassioned, merit-based decisions while the rest of use a pernicious “fuzzy logic.”
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Republicans are going to avoid opposition like the sun isn't gonna come out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

Probably about half of the Republicans in the Senate, maybe somewhat more than half, will oppose whatever person he selects. But given the history of these things there probably are maybe 15 Republican senators who could vote to confirm a mainstream nominee. Of course, it's pretty much moot since Obama really doesn't need their votes.

[quote name='speedracer']I don't understand how Gibbs's statements and your critiques match up. What part is dismissive of the law? What part lends to an "inflated sense of self"?

Our Supreme Court has never been more homogeneous than it is right now. This was the first time the court was packed with every jurist a Federal Court of Appeals judge. That's not how it should be done.[/QUOTE]

First, to your second comment, I agree with you.

Gibbs' statements do match up perfectly with my critique. Gibbs states that Obama wants a jurist who will let empathy for less-fortunate groups (or some groups, perhaps not less fortunate, given what we see reflected in the liberal establishment in this country) influence their rulings, instead of merely relying on the law and the intent of the law. By "inflated sense of self" I was referring to jurists who feel they are the ones who should make political decisions, when that is not their job at all. Sadly, it seems Obama feels it is part of their job, given what Gibbs said at the briefing yesterday and what Obama has maintained for a long time with regards to picking a justice. Obviously, a justice has no business deciding whether the law is right or wrong, just what it means. Even the example Gibbs used was a case decided correctly on the letter of the law, while the left in this country felt it was unjust because the law was incredibly poorly written and caused injustice to be inflicted on a wronged person.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Gibbs' statements do match up perfectly with my critique. Gibbs states that Obama wants a jurist who will let empathy for less-fortunate groups (or some groups, perhaps not less fortunate, given what we see reflected in the liberal establishment in this country) influence their rulings, instead of merely relying on the law and the intent of the law.[/quote]
A stinging criticism sorely deserved. I don't think it's the end of the conversation, but a good point. I think most of what Gibbs is saying there is code for "liberal viewpoint". Alito, while I dislike his positions, has struck me so far as a quality jurist that relies on law and intent, yet also brings conservative viewpoints to the court. A liberal version of Alito would suit me fine. I think Sotomeyer fits that bill, but again, I don't like the yet-another-yalie-appeals-court jurist thing.

By "inflated sense of self" I was referring to jurists who feel they are the ones who should make political decisions, when that is not their job at all. Sadly, it seems Obama feels it is part of their job, given what Gibbs said at the briefing yesterday and what Obama has maintained for a long time with regards to picking a justice. Obviously, a justice has no business deciding whether the law is right or wrong, just what it means. Even the example Gibbs used was a case decided correctly on the letter of the law, while the left in this country felt it was unjust because the law was incredibly poorly written and caused injustice to be inflicted on a wronged person.
Click to expand...
I see your point. I guess I'm just more interested in seeing the record of the actual appointee. In my perfect world there would be a mix of activist jurists (conservative and liberal) as well as what goes for strict constructionist (conservative and liberal) on the court. Neither version has a monopoly on the great moments of the court and I think it's shortsighted to demand a single view of law as required to interpret on the bench.

[quote name='elprincipe']Probably about half of the Republicans in the Senate, maybe somewhat more than half, will oppose whatever person he selects. But given the history of these things there probably are maybe 15 Republican senators who could vote to confirm a mainstream nominee. Of course, it's pretty much moot since Obama really doesn't need their votes.[/quote]
I don't know that he'll be in a hurry after the Republicans slapped his hand on the recovery bill, but I hope that Obama does consult the Republicans on the pick. For some reason Orrin Hatch was the go-to guy for Clinton and actually approved of Ginsburg (which I still can't wrap my head around). I would love to see a committee appointed to come up with suggestions that included people like Orrin Hatch, Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neill (yea, I know he's dead), Bill Clinton, maybe even a Ron Paul and Kucinich. If you could get those guys to go into a room and come out with a name, you'd have a helluva jurist.
 
Souter was a completely out of left field type of pick by GB I and no surprise that he's retiring based upon his reported dislike for DC (he was mugged) and going back home to NH. He's certainly been on the more "liberal" side of most decisions so an Obama pick will probably not significantly change the current voting "blocks" on the court.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Am I missing something? Did I misspell something? Heaven forbid I misspell something ON THE INTERNET![/QUOTE]...

I thought your post was funny. Relax.
 
Anyone pissed off that everyone is talking about how Obama has to pick a woman? Shouldn't Obama pick the best possible candidate even if that happens to be a old white male? This sounds like affirmative action to me. Pass over better a candidates just to pick a woman.
 
[quote name='laaj']Anyone pissed off that everyone is talking about how Obama has to pick a woman? Shouldn't Obama pick the best possible candidate even if that happens to be a old white male? This sounds like affirmative action to me. Pass over better a candidates just to pick a woman.[/QUOTE]
I think we're all used to progressives doing that by now.
 
[quote name='laaj']Anyone pissed off that everyone is talking about how Obama has to pick a woman? Shouldn't Obama pick the best possible candidate even if that happens to be a old white male? This sounds like affirmative action to me. Pass over better a candidates just to pick a woman.[/QUOTE]

Are you really surprised? The Democratic Party has been beholden to an identity politics strategy for decades at this point in time. Of course they're demanding a woman, a Hispanic. Why wouldn't they? When Marshall retired, another black "had" to be nominated. Liberal groups were in a tizzy when Bush failed to nominate a competent woman (after the abject failure of his crony Harriet Miers) to replace O'Connor. For quite a few influential leftist groups it really is that important if you are a woman, black, Hispanic, gay or whatever. That is why you hear Obama talking about "empathy" and "life experience" even while paying lip service to qualifications. We all can plainly see from the list that's been leaked that he's going to pick a woman and possibly a Hispanic woman, and these are the only real options he's considering. This whole worldview fits in well with the liberal establishment's since it marginalizes personal achievement in favor of a false "equality" achieved by pigeonholing people into groups based on insignificant things like their skin color.
 
[quote name='laaj']Anyone pissed off that everyone is talking about how Obama has to pick a woman? Shouldn't Obama pick the best possible candidate even if that happens to be a old white male?[/quote]
That might carry some weight if 106 out of 110 supreme court justices hadn't been white males. Are you prepared to argue that in our nation's history the best candidate was a white male over 96% of the time?

This sounds like affirmative action to me. Pass over better a candidates just to pick a woman.
Click to expand...
Every time anyone that isn't a white male is even *considered*, they're an AA selection. It is possible that right now there is an abundance of jurists on the liberal side that happen to be quality jurists AND not white males *gasp*?

Little "r" racism and little "s" sexism is still both, champ.

Prove me wrong. Show me a candidate of any stripe better than Kagan.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Prove me wrong. Show me a candidate of any stripe better than Kagan.[/QUOTE]

Done.

judge_dredd.jpg
 
[quote name='speedracer']That might carry some weight if 106 out of 110 supreme court justices hadn't been white males. Are you prepared to argue that in our nation's history the best candidate was a white male over 96% of the time?
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Because until recently the only people who received decent edumacations were, you guessed it, white males. Crazy how that works, eh?
 
[quote name='speedracer']
Prove me wrong. Show me a candidate of any stripe better than Kagan.[/QUOTE]

Plenty. But I don't have to since Kagan's lack of experience is enough. She was a law clerk and worked for a law firm before move to teaching law. Oh if you think that law firm experience is enough, that law firm represents scums of the earth. Bill Clinton during the Monica gate, Enron, movie industry, and Vioxx company, just to name a few.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That might carry some weight if 106 out of 110 supreme court justices hadn't been white males. Are you prepared to argue that in our nation's history the best candidate was a white male over 96% of the time?
[/QUOTE]

Good points. But just because this country was racists and sexists in the past that we have to make up for that in some way? Best option is to start with a clean slate and try to ignore race, sex, religion, and whatever.
 
[quote name='laaj']Good points. But just because this country was racists and sexists in the past that we have to make up for that in some way? Best option is to start with a clean slate and try to ignore race, sex, religion, and whatever.[/QUOTE]

OK. From this point forward, what percentage of should be minorities or women?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. From this point forward, what percentage of should be minorities or women?[/QUOTE]

0-100%. It all depends on qualifications.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Yep. Because until recently the only people who received decent edumacations were, you guessed it, white males. Crazy how that works, eh?[/QUOTE]
Quick, someone disregard one of the undisputed great Justices in history right out of hand! I guess from Marshall to O'Connor, there wasn't a single white woman, black man or woman, hispanic man or woman, Native American man or woman, Asian man or woman more qualified than any of the white men seated.

Hardy har har.
[quote name='laaj']Plenty. But I don't have to since Kagan's lack of experience is enough.[/quote]
There has never been a court entirely composed of appeals judges before this one. Ever. There have always been practitioners (large and small), "lower" court judges, even politicians appointed who served with distinction. Kagan's "lack" of experience is talking head bullshit from people with no sense of the history of the court. No offense, but that's what it is.
Enron
Click to expand...
Easy there tiger. My wife is sitting in the law office of V&E this very second. :D

Ready for what a small world it is? The founder of the very law firm you're railing on is the same one that left and opened a boutique firm (allegedly because W&C didn't have the balls anymore to get nasty). One of their hires? A young man named John Roberts.

It's an incestuous industry and everyone's doing something you don't like. They're lawyers for christ's sake. If you wait to find one you like you could die of old age 10 times over.
[quote name='laaj']Good points. But just because this country was racists and sexists in the past that we have to make up for that in some way? Best option is to start with a clean slate and try to ignore race, sex, religion, and whatever.[/QUOTE]
The Democratic party has been pressing to get minorities and women into educational slots for how many decades now? Is it really that difficult to believe that, lo and behold, right at the age the first crop of beneficiaries is ready to take places on the bench, a strong number of candidates appear? Is it really that big a stretch?
 
[quote name='laaj']0-100%. It all depends on qualifications.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in perfect Supreme Court justices any more than I believe in perfect Presidents, Senators, Representatives or soulmates.

Does the candidate have a law degree?

Is the candidate literate?

Has the candidate committed a felony?

Other than that, a candidate has to convince 50 Senators and the Vice President of his or her adequacy.

If Obama wants to spend his political capital by specifically not nominating white males, that is his prerogative.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
The Democratic party has been pressing to get minorities and women into educational slots for how many decades now? Is it really that difficult to believe that, lo and behold, right at the age the first crop of beneficiaries is ready to take places on the bench, a strong number of candidates appear? Is it really that big a stretch?[/QUOTE]

OK. Then let them get the job on merit alone instead of current Obama's plan to only seriously consider women.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
If Obama wants to spend his political capital by specifically not nominating white males, that is his prerogative.[/QUOTE]

And you don't have any problem with that? What if he said he's not going to nominate blacks? Asians? Gays?
 
[quote name='laaj']And you don't have any problem with that? What if he said he's not going to nominate blacks? Asians? Gays?[/QUOTE]

His prerogative. Bush spent his political capital on Iraq. If Obama spends his on packing the USSC with a particular breed or sex of human, there are worse things a president can do.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That might carry some weight if 106 out of 110 supreme court justices hadn't been white males. Are you prepared to argue that in our nation's history the best candidate was a white male over 96% of the time?[/QUOTE]

You're including a time period during which nonwhites and females were heavily discriminated against from birth, and you still think it's weird that white males probably were the best candidates most of the time?
 
[quote name='rickonker']You're including a time period during which nonwhites and females were heavily discriminated against from birth, and you still think it's weird that white males probably were the best candidates most of the time?[/QUOTE]

4 of the 17 justices since the civil right movement have been either female or black, just a tad under 25%. thats a pretty good improvement and right in line with america as a whole.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']4 of the 17 justices since the civil right movement have been either female or black, just a tad under 25%. thats a pretty good improvement and right in line with america as a whole.[/QUOTE]

While I would dismiss as nonsense that SCOTUS justices have to be "in line with America as a whole" when considering race/gender, it's pretty hard to argue that 2/17 is in line with 51% of the population.

The bottom line is that, as FOC says, Obama's going to do it his way, and that means that the nominee will no doubt be a woman. It offends me that this is the predetermined outcome of what should be a search for the best candidate, but at least there are clearly plenty of qualified people he can pick from. Let's hope he changes his mind about what he said before and goes for someone willing to rule for the law no matter how unpopular it is.
 
I don't get it. Do any of you actually think that these are entirely objective qualifications? That there is one "best" candidate that is "most qualified"?

And given the fact that there are probably multiple candidates that are equally qualified that are different races and genders, would you not want to make the court more representative of the population, or at least more diverse than it presently is? Or should you just "ignore race and gender" (and by "ignore race and gender" I mean give the job to a white guy, of course, preferably a protestant christian, but if not, well...I guess it'll do, it's the only way to ensure we aren't swayed by race or gender).
 
If the goal was to strive for more equitable representation, why are they even considering someone like Elena Kagen? SCOTUS is filled with white people. All this is proving is that white majority is acceptable while male majority is not.
 
Why does it even matter race/gender the next judge is. Either the next judge is competent or he/she isn't. It's not rocket science here, just give it to the most qualified person and bada bing bada boom problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top