U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter Retiring in June

16 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2009-05-01 01:49

Debater

NBC: Souter to retire from Supreme Court
His retirement would give Obama his first chance to nominate a justice

NBC News and news services
updated 9:06 p.m. PT, Thurs., April 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire, after more than 19 years on the court, once the current term ends in late June, NBC News reported Thursday night.

A retirement by Souter, 69, would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings. His departure, however, isn't likely to change the court's liberal-conservative composition, because his successor will almost certainly be moderate to liberal, NBC News correspondent Pete Williams reported.

Fri, 2009-05-01 01:50

Debater

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/

Fri, 2009-05-01 16:23

Debater

I was just listening to the American legal experts like Jeffrey Toobin, and he points out that it really is time for the U.S. to have another woman on its Supreme Court. Only having one out of nine is unacceptable in today's day and age. It's certainly far behind Canada where we have four out of nine women on our Supreme Court.

Fri, 2009-05-01 18:24

Tommy_Paine

Well, let's remember that the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court was the swing vote in the judicial coup which put Bush the younger in power.

And, just because we have four women on our Supreme Court hardly makes it a progressive bunch.

I agree Obama's appointee should be a woman. But, I rather hope it will be the right woman.

Fri, 2009-05-01 19:36

Debater

That decision was pretty disgraceful and Justice Souter has said it is what led to his disillusionment with the Supreme Court.

There's nothing Obama can do about Sandra Day O'Connor now - he has to focus on picking the right woman as you said.

Sat, 2009-05-02 08:00

josh

Here are the leading contenders to replace Souter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-c_n_194470.html

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Diane_Wood
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Leah_Ward_Sears
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/elena-kagan-supreme-court_n_194519.html
Personally, I prefer Wood. She's the brightest one with judicial experience, and arguably the most progressive of the four.

Sat, 2009-05-02 08:37

Tommy_Paine

If Obama appoints Wood, I'd take it as an indicator that he's serious about regulating Wall Street and the rest of the business world. Note Wood has much experience on anti-trust laws.

Kagan brings with her the political advantage of enabling Obama to appoint someone to replace her in her current position, and that she's a controvertial person-- already passed the confirmation process. Her appointment would gall the Republicans the most, however.

Of the bunch, I'd say Wood has the inside track. Kagan's advantages seem to be mostly short term, while Wood's could cement a legislative legacy for decades, and so far it seems to me Obama is more interested in the long term.

I think the dillema for Obama is whether to try to "balance" the Supreme Courts wacked out right wingers like Scalia and Thomas with someone from the far left-- thereby enjoining a game which will see the Court polarized from here on in, or ignore this game and appoint a moderate or slightly left of center judge.

I think Obama would prefer the second view to the first.

Sat, 2009-05-02 16:27

Bärlüer

My fantasy pick would be this woman. So it will most probably never happen (although her name is supposed to appear on one of those non-existing "lists".)

She actually made some (pretty loud) comments about what kind of person she would like to see appointed.

Sat, 2009-05-02 20:45

josh

Tommy, that's a good point about Wood. I actually read after I posted that that she gave a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on antitrust law that was well-received. Which is not a good sign. Obama knows her, but that could cut both ways.

Here's someone I overlooked who could have a chance:

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2009/05/southern...

Sun, 2009-05-03 07:27

#10

Tommy_Paine

I should have paid more attention to the why's behind Obama's Cabinet picks. Those with a good insight on those picks would have an advantage speculating here. From what I can see, though, it strikes me that Obama's picks must first pass scrutiny on ability before politics. It's obvious, for example, that there were political considerations guiding Obama's selection for Secretary of State. However, I doubt they would have been the trump card, if he thought Clinton wasn't one of the better candidates on abilties alone.

I tried to wade through the thumbnail descriptions of Wood's notable decisions, but I don't have enough smarts to discern a bias in regards to anti-trust from what little is there. However, we must remember that the court interprets the laws. Her knowlege in this area-- particularly if no one else has it-- may be enough for Obama.

Sun, 2009-05-03 08:11

#11

josh

"My fantasy pick would be this woman."

I don't think he'll pick someone straight out of academia. When a vacancy occurs in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, he could pick Karlan, with an eye to elevating her later on. That's what was done with Scalia and Thomas.

Sun, 2009-05-03 12:20

#12

josh

No, I haven't. I know the book has gotten a lot of play. The title is somewhat misleading, with its implication that Lincoln consciously sought to piece together a "team of rivals." A lot of the appointments were the result of political deals among leaders of the newly-formed Republican party.

And I have soured on her as a historian since this scandal.

http://www.slate.com/?id=2061056

Although it hasn't affected her status as probably the most visible historian in the U.S.

Mon, 2009-05-04 00:40

#13

Bärlüer

josh wrote:

"My fantasy pick would be this woman."

I don't think he'll pick someone straight out of academia. When a vacancy occurs in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, he could pick Karlan, with an eye to elevating her later on. That's what was done with Scalia and Thomas.

Sounds plausible enough.

(Still: how awesome would it be to have on the bench someone bringing on board this kind of discourse? Damn...)

Wed, 2009-05-06 12:35

#14

Debater

Tommy_Paine wrote:

It's obvious, for example, that there were political considerations guiding Obama's selection for Secretary of State. However, I doubt they would have been the trump card, if he thought Clinton wasn't one of the better candidates on abilties alone.

According to former U.S. Presidential Adviser David Gergen (as well as others), Obama chose Hillary Clinton because he wanted a big name who was internationally known and who already had many connections in the world and because he needed someone who could deal with some of the foreign affairs responsibilities right away while he attends to the domestic crisis of the economy.

Tue, 2009-05-26 19:47

#15

Tommy_Paine

I just wikied Obama's Cabinet, and a few of the people in it. It seems to me that Obama views the Cabinet as a tool box. It seems each one brings an experience or talent for the tasks Obama thinks are before him.

In that light, his selection for the Supreme Court may be a tip off of what legal challenges he thinks his agenda over the next four to eight years will face in that time and into the future.

{ in that light, I bet Dick Chenney shit his pants when Ed Holder was appointed Attourney General, and despite the publically stated view of Obama that he want's to "move on", I really doubt that's his private view. He certainly didn't appoint a "let's just move on" Attourney General }

Josh, have you read "Team of Rivals" ?

And, btw, I think for sure it will be Sonia Sotomayor, to be announced on May 26.