Right Thinking From The Left Coast
You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life - Albert Camus

Souter Down

David Souter is apparently retiring from the Supreme Court.  We are about to really see just who Barack Obama is.

I’m sure this will get plenty hysterical in the next few months—especially now that the Dems have the votes to cram through a radical if the want to.  But I’m cautiously optimistic we’ll get someone reasonable.  It’s not like there’s a whole lot of space to the left of Souter.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/30/09 at 08:21 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 04/30/09 at 09:58 PM from Germany

Wow, I was sure Ginsberg or Stevens would be the first to go, but that they would wait unless/until Obama took office, or they were carried out on a stretcher if McCain won. 

This is a major surprise.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 10:01 PM from United States

It’s not really a major surprise, HeartlessLibertarian, to people who follow the Supreme Court. I don’t mean that in a rude way [I’m a law student, so I tend to care about these things more than most.]

Souter was known to have expressed displeasure with DC and the job in general. He was much happier when he was on the New Hampshire state court.

Hal, IMO there is plenty of space to the left of Souter.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 10:04 PM from United States

Point I forgot to mention:

Stevens will almost certainly not go. He is obsessed with being both the oldest Justice to have served as well as breaking the record for longest-serving Justice.

Stevens, by all accounts, greatly enjoys the job. Look for him to exit only if he falls gravely ill.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 10:44 PM from Germany

Souter was known to have expressed displeasure with DC and the job in general. He was much happier when he was on the New Hampshire state court.

That makes sense.  I guess it was a surprise for me because these justices don’t exactly have a history of going out early.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/01/09 at 04:57 AM from United States

Mow, we really get to see what kind of man Pres. Obama is.
My prediction. Female, Minority, strong leftie views, and with a tax problem.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 05/01/09 at 06:03 AM from United States

I see to recall, Awesome, that Souter wanted to leave after Bush v. Gore because he thought everyone else decided bsed on politics rather than principle.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/01/09 at 07:04 AM from Canada

Souter didn’t hire clerks for next year… I think that’s a pretty good sign he going to retire.

As I recall during the Bush appointee days conservative pundits said that personal beliefs were secondary to the simple question of are they qualified. I’m going to make an early prediction that this won’t hold true for Obama’s nominee, regardless of who it is.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/01/09 at 07:16 AM from Canada

He should nominate William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright just to induce coronaries in right wing nutbag pundits.

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 05/01/09 at 07:32 AM from United States

I’m going to make an early prediction that this won’t hold true for Obama’s nominee, regardless of who it is.

People say all kinds of insane things when they think they’re going to be in power forever.

As John Roberts said during his hearings, though, this “are you going to stand up for the little guy” stuff is a crock. What matters is if you’re going to interpret the law as written.

Posted by on 05/01/09 at 09:47 AM from United States

I see to recall, Awesome, that Souter wanted to leave after Bush v. Gore because he thought everyone else decided bsed on politics rather than principle.

Hal,

That’s true AFAIK. But why does that indicate to you he is the most liberal of them all?

Posted by on 05/01/09 at 10:10 AM from United States

As I recall during the Bush appointee days conservative pundits said that personal beliefs were secondary to the simple question of are they qualified.

Purely your opinion. But these tactics are fluid, depending on which side of the fence you’re on.

Betcha, the Ds will denounce a Republican filibuster on the nominee, if it comes to that.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/01/09 at 10:26 AM from Canada

Agreed. Blatant hypocracy is a well established political tactic.

Oh, it will come to that.
Back in November,

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R) the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, threatened to filibuster any of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees he considered insufficiently conservative. That was 11 weeks before Obama was even inaugurated.

(Washington Monthly)

Posted by on 05/01/09 at 10:35 AM from United States

Bill Ayers will be a contender for the position…

Posted by on 05/01/09 at 10:37 AM from United States

I see to recall, Awesome, that Souter wanted to leave after Bush v. Gore because he thought everyone else decided bsed on politics rather than principle.

Which is odd, because he voted on politics rather than principle…

Posted by Miguelito on 05/01/09 at 01:12 PM from United States

Which is odd, because he voted on politics rather than principle…

Nah.. remember, when a lefty does it.. it’s principle.  Anyone else, it’s politics.

I love the irony in his statement too considering how the voting on Kelo went down.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/01/09 at 07:50 PM from United States

From Wikipedia ....

Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the President power to nominate Justices, who are then appointed “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Most Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. In many cases, however, a Justice’s decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Dwight D. Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court’s history. Eisenhower later called the appointment “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."[10] Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court.

so on qualifications , pretty much anything goes.

Posted by josparke on 05/01/09 at 09:21 PM from United States

I’m seeing him Nominate Ayers too…

Posted by Hal_10000 on 05/02/09 at 02:17 AM from United States

That’s true AFAIK. But why does that indicate to you he is the most liberal of them all?

It doesn’t.  Just interesting.

Next entry: Good News on Cramdowns

Previous entry: Stewart Bombs Out

<< Back to main