Souter's Retiring

[balli]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and to return to his native New Hampshire.

Now, according to reliable sources he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

Obama was elected with strong support from women.

An Obama pick would not likely change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.

[FromWayDowntown]

An interesting first appointment for President Obama. With Ginsberg and Stevens also being likely to retire soon to give this President the opportunity to appoint their replacements as well, there's an opportunity for Obama to really replenish what is perceived as the leftward-leaning block of the Court -- Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens -- and solidify it for the long term.

That's exactly what George W. Bush did with Roberts and Alito; it's exactly what Reagan did with Scalia and Kennedy; it's exactly what Clinton did with Breyer and Ginsberg; it's exactly what George H.W. Bush tried to do with Souter and Thomas.

[Winehole23]

The key word being tried. Judges don't always turn out to be what politicians want them to be. Judges tend to think for themselves. They can be unpredictable. Reagan didn't get *what he wanted* with Kennedy, nor Bush with Souter.

[TheProfessor]

Sonia Sotomayor's name is getting batted around a lot. Princeton undergrad, Yale Law School, female and Hispanic, a political moderate, nominated originally to the Southern District Court of NY by George H.W. Bush. Seems almost too perfect politically and in terms of law resume.

[DarkReign]

...and once again, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm is being talked about as a replacement. Harvard Law, State District Attorney, Federal Prosecutor then Governor.

[FaithInOne]

Let's get an ACLU biatch up in hur.

[clambake]

:lmao harriet miers.

[Kermit]

:lmao harriet miers.

Of all the monumental fuckups, this one is the funniest.

[FromWayDowntown]

A few thoughts about Justice Souter's retirement from some who practice before the Supreme Court and closely follow the institution and its people:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-souters-retirement-and-where-we-go-from-here/

Justice Souter’s Retirement and Where We Go from Here
Friday, May 1st, 2009 1:14 am | Tom Goldstein |

Legal Washington’s best-kept secret leaked this afternoon, and by 10pm Pete Williams and then Nina Totenberg had confirmed that Justice Souter intends to retire. That fact - or presumed fact, given how the message was communicated to the White House - was very closely held there, at the Senate, and at the Court - closely enough that preparations for the nomination of a successor were substantially restrained - among a group that not only was under strict orders but also genuinely appreciated both the Justice’s privacy and his efforts to signal his intentions in advance to the President and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The future of the Court is a sufficiently explosive topic that a leak over time unfortunately became essentially inevitable, particularly given that it was a known fact by at least some at the highest levels of each branch of government. It was in fact only a coincidence of timing that the secret held until after arguments for this Term concluded yesterday.

It is pure speculation to say why the Justice decided to retire now. He is a private man, and those of us who do not talk with him - which includes perhaps every pundit - ought to acknowledge the severe limits on what we actually know rather than presume and infer. But it is no stretch to say that it was likely an easier decision for him than it has been for many of his predecessors. Justice Souter’s sense of self has never seemed bound up in his status. It is likely that once it became clear that Justice Ginsburg would fully recover and serve for many years more, this seemed like an appropriate time to retire from the Court.

Justice Souter still may offer no confirmation that tonight’s stories are correct, much less a formal resignation. His concern is for the institution, and the last thing he will have wanted is to draw attention to himself and to create a distraction while the Term continues. He provided a signal, and likely hoped for the best that it would stay confidential. On the other hand, he is not one for gamesmanship and, assuming his mind truly is finally decided, may conclude that it is best to be done with any remaining ambiguity. The model of Justices O’Connor and Marshall - a resignation effective upon the confirmation of a successor (almost certainly this summer) - seems the most likely path he would take, given that there is no urgency to his departure.

At the White House (where counsel were aware and at work) and the Senate Judiciary Committee (where they were not), the pace of discussions and preparations for a successor will now increase considerably. And that is where most of the attention of the press and the public will immediately turn - forwards, rather than reflecting back on the Justice and his work. He won’t mind, but it is still too bad. Washington always angles for a leak (tonight) and a fight (this summer). This is the point at which the collegiality and insularity of the Court meet the competitiveness of the media and vindictiveness of partisan politics.

Justice Souter obviously has a significant legacy at the Supreme Court. I will mention some of the cases in a moment. But it is important to pause and recognize he will go down in history as a gentleman and (rare these days) a scholar who (even more rare) sees no need to show that fact off. He has the kindness of Justice Stevens and the smile of the late Justice Brennan, but he also is perfectly capable of confronting an advocate who was out-and-out wrong. He is respectful but direct. You know where you stand with him. His colleagues and the Court staff will miss him when he leaves.

So far, he has written 156 majority opinions for the Court. There isn’t the space here - or the time for reflection - to catalog them in order of importance or interest. But in constitutional law, his opinion for five Justices in McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), stands at the knife’s edge of stating a controlling rule of law in Establishment Clause cases that may not survive the departure of Sandra Day O’Connor. His opinion in the right of speech and association in Hurley v. Irish-American, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), is among the most often cited in the field. For a time, he was a member of a majority to more broadly uphold campaign finance regulation, as reflected in his opinions in FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001), and Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (1999). For a man with a somewhat distant relationship with technology, his opinion in MGM Studios v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is surpassingly important to the future of copyright, and opinions like Verizon Comms. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467 (2002), play a central role in telecommunications regulation. Others decided critical questions of procedure. The defense bar hopes that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), is a landmark ruling on the obligation to set forth detailed allegations in a complaint. Beyond his opinions, the Justice’s vote has often been essential, as when he played a central role in the troika in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), that upheld the core of Roe v. Wade.

Justice Souter’s 123 dissenting opinions also tell you a great deal about him and his leading role, particularly among the Justices on the left, on the Court. In fact, with greater control over his own writing assignments, the Justice’s own opinions in the very most significant cases tended to be in dissent. This Term, for example, he has written the lead dissent in some of the Court’s most difficult and divisive cases - 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009), Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009), and Waddington v. Sarausad, 129 S. Ct. 823 (2009). Particularly significant, but often overlooked, is his dissent in Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), which was the strongest statement by the left of the Court of their concerns with the death penalty arising from evidence that wrongly convicted individuals were being executed.

What next then? The President must pick a nominee under overhanging threats and bombast from both the left (which fears disappointment) and the right (which has no genuine influence on the process, but recognizes the great importance of the Court).

So first we learn about the President. It seems obvious to me that he is focused on qualifications. By contrast, we have very little to go on in terms of the weight the President places on ideology in judicial nominations, which is a big deal. Judge Diane Wood and Professor Pam Karlan are both Democrats and geniuses, but they see a reasonable amount of the law differently.

Progressives come to this nomination with admiration for President Bush’s (eventual, in one instance) ability to identify and confirm exceptionally qualified nominees who also hold strong jurisprudential views that (in the case of Justice Alito) moved the Court. They contrast that commitment to shaping the Court with what they remember as President Clinton’s unwillingness to invest his “capital” in liberal nominees in the mold of Bill Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. They will want to believe that the make-up of the Senate - particularly given the coincidentally timed switch of Senator Specter to the Democratic Party and the anticipated arrival of Al Franken - gives the Administration essentially a free hand to appoint whomever it wants. And they will believe that it is possible that the same may not be true by the time another nomination rolls around in later years. Progressives will push very hard.

We can say that it has to be a woman. The gender imbalance on the Court is absurd, and the Administration will like the perceived contrast with President Bush’s failure to address it. Race and ethnicity seem less important. As the best known Hispanic judge appointed by a Democrat, Sonia Sotomayor will be seriously considered. But she will only be nominated if the President genuinely believes her to be the best candidate; racial politics can be addressed through other nominations.

So, who? Who knows? Given my premise that qualifications are extremely important - i.e., that the President will want to pick someone who stacks up evenly with the Chief Justice and Justice Alito - a truly shocking surprise is very unlikely. The number of people who have the horsepower and reputation to truly deserve a Supreme Court appointment is pretty small. My most recent post on this speculation is here, and I don’t have much to add to it. (The President and I don’t talk as often as we should.) I said then that “[t]he three obvious candidates are Elena Kagan (SG), Sonia Sotomayor (CA2), and Diane Wood (CA7). The sleeper candidate is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.” Governor Granholm subsequently said she was not interested, but you never know. Through all his Chicago ties, including to the University of Chicago Law School, the President will be very familiar with Judge Wood’s reputation for brilliance. The President also knows Elena Kagan (who has her own Chicago ties) and the Administration will be very conscious of the fact that General Kagan is ten years younger and has the reputation from Harvard of working very well and persuasively among an ideologically diverse group.

The President will be personally invested and involved. I think it will come down to interviews between Wood, Kagan, Sotomayor, and two more out-of-the-box candidates, perhaps one with significant political experience and another who is a progressive visionary. And the President will decide personally based on his own very individual view of how he wants to shape the Court. There is no rush to make an announcement. The Term will conclude at the very end of June, and it makes no sense - and there is no pressure - to announce a choice for a successor before the Justice has completed this Term’s work. That leaves two months, which is plenty of time, and the President can reasonably be expected in very early July to name his nominee. Hearings would be held in early or mid- August (the Administration and Senate Democrats will want them sooner rather than later, in order to not leave the nominee hanging), when the rest of Washington hoped to be on vacation away from the heat.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_26-2009_05_02.shtml#1241187999

Friday, May 1, 2009
[Jonathan Adler, May 1, 2009 at 10:26am]

How Souter's Replacement Could Change the Court: The prevailing wisdom is that replacing Justice David Souter will not have a significant impact on the Supreme Court's balance. For most high-profile, ideologically charged issues, this is probably true (at least in the near term). Justice Souter is generally quite "liberal," and anyone President Obama nominates is likely to be quite liberal as well. That said, I think there are two ways in which Souter's replacement could have a significant effect on the Court's balance and doctrinal trajectory.

First, Justice Souter's replacement could alter the balance of the Court on a number of issues on which the Court is closely divided, but does not split along the traditional left-right fault line. Consider, for example, this term's decision in Arizona v. Gant. Justice Stevens' majority limiting the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Breyer was in dissent. Other criminal law cases, including the sentencing guideline cases, have produced similar lineups. So, if Justice Souter's replacement were to align with Justice Breyer, instead of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, we could have a significant shift on the Court. Indeed, replacing Justice Souter with a justice who follows Justice Breyer's approach to criminal law issues could actually move the Court to the "right" (at least on these issues).

Replacing Justice Souter could also have a significant effect is on the Court's decisions on the due process limitations on punitive damages. Justice Souter joined the five justice majorities in BMW v. Gore and Philip Morris v. Williams limiting the award of punitives on due process grounds, and also wrote the Court's majority in Exxon Shipping v. Baker, which limited punitive damages under the federal common law of maritime. Again, "liberal" justices are split on this question. Here, however, if Souter's replacement were to align with Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, it is likely that the Court's recent punitive damages cases could be overturned.

A second way that Justice Souter's replacement could alter the balance on the Court would occur behind the scenes. Adding a new justice inevitably alters the internal dynamic on the Court, and some justices are better coalition builders than others. Insofar as Justice Souter's replacement is more (or less) able to forge consensus and draft opinions that command wide support, this could also have a significant effect on the Court. Even were President Obama to replace Justice Souter with someone who votes identically on every issue, the nomination could still have a significant impact (especially over time) if the new justice is more able to influence his or her colleagues.

Many on the Left say they want President Obama to nominate a "liberal Scalia". I would say they should be careful what they wish for. Justice Scalia's opinions may be well-written and intellectually satisfying, but the same things that can make his opinions fun to read may prevent his opinions in many areas from commanding a majority of the Court. To take one example, documented by Professor Richard Lazarus shows in this paper, Justice Scalia's insistence on stronger bright-line rules for regulatory takings prevented him from creating a workable majority and produced "precedent heavy on strong rhetoric yet light on staying power." It's not an accident there's a book of his opinions called Scalia Dissents. So, perhaps paradoxically, a liberal nominee who demonstrates less ideological fervor, but is more strategic and conciliatory, might be more successful at moving the Court leftward.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_26-2009_05_02.shtml#1241150395

[Ilya Somin, April 30, 2009 at 11:59pm]

Why Souter's Replacement Matters Even if She has the Exact Same Views as Souter: The MSNBC story on liberal Justice David Souter's likely retirement states that his departure "isn't likely to change the court's liberal-conservative composition, because his successor will almost certainly be moderate to liberal." The Washington Post similarly reports that "Souter's retirement is unlikely to alter the ideological balance on the closely divided court because Obama is certain to replace the liberal-leaning justice with someone with similar views." More generally, we often hear claims that the appointment of new justices whose interpretive philosophy is similar to those they replace is relatively unimportant because it won't affect the balance of the Court.

This conventional wisdom is wrong. It ignores the fact that the newly appointed justice will likely serve for many years to come, during which time the composition of the rest of the Court will change. Today, the average Supreme Court justice serves for over 26 years. Over such a lengthy tenure, there is likely to be turnover among the other justices, and the current appointee's ideology may have a major impact on the balance of power over the long run even if its immediate effect is insignificant.

For example, let's assume that Justice Souter's replacement always votes exactly as Souter himself would have. So long as the rest of the Court remains the same as today, nothing will change. However, if Obama is then able to replace even one of the five more conservative justices, the balance of power would become very different than it would have been had Souter been replaced by a more conservative justice than himself. What would have been a 5-4 conservative majority will become a 5-4 liberal one. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, is 73 and could eventually be replaced by a liberal Obama appointee - especially if Obama wins reelection in 2012. Moreover, Souter's replacement will likely serve for decades to come. So Scalia's possible replacement by an Obama appointee is just one of many events that could happen during the tenure of Souter's successor that could make his or her ideology extremely important.

In theory, if Scalia is replaced by a liberal in 2012 and Souter himself remains on the Court, the ideological balance will be exactly the same as if Souter were replaced by a younger ideological clone of himself in 2009. However, the "younger" part is a key distinction between the two. Souter's replacement is likely to be much younger than he is, and will therefore probably be around a lot longer than Souter would have been had he chosen not to retire this year. Thus, he or (more likely) she will be affecting the Court's ideological balance for many years longer than Souter would have been able to do.

For these reasons, Souter's replacement will matter a great deal even if he or she has little immediate impact on the ideological balance on the Court.

[clambake]

you said he's not about gamesmanship.

if he doesn't retire, could that be a sign that he's not happy with his possible replacement that's being kicked around in the back room?

[FromWayDowntown]

At this point, I don't think Souter will do anything other than retire, regardless of the identity of his successor.

[TheProfessor]

...and once again, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm is being talked about as a replacement. Harvard Law, State District Attorney, Federal Prosecutor then Governor.
Obama stated during the primaries that Justice Warren was his ideal jurist, with his political experience as governor of California before being appointed. It makes sense.

[implacable44]

who cares .. he will apoint a liberal left - pro-abortion anti-gun "yes" man and probably a transnationalist -- looking to international law to establish American Law...I fear the appointment of HArold Koh more than this replacement.

[clambake]

who cares .. he will apoint a liberal left - pro-abortion anti-gun "yes" man and probably a transnationalist -- looking to international law to establish American Law...I fear the appointment of HArold Koh more than this replacement.

harriet doesn't have a chance? :lmao

[FromWayDowntown]

who cares .. he will apoint a liberal left - pro-abortion anti-gun "yes" man and probably a transnationalist -- looking to international law to establish American Law...I fear the appointment of HArold Koh more than this replacement.

Yeah, and just think, he's replacing one of those.

The horror of the zero-sum game at the Supreme Court!

[ChumpDumper]

who caresYeah, there are so many other, more important political issues to care about like a bust that was returned to it's collection three months ago.

[implacable44]

harriet doesn't have a chance? :lmao

Are you saying that you doubt his chances to be confirmed ?

[ChumpDumper]

I fear the appointment of HArold Koh more than this replacement.Yeah, Koh destroyed America when he worked for Reagan.

[implacable44]

Yeah, Koh destroyed America when he worked for Reagan.

you are comparing the position of attorney advisor to the OLG to that of legal advisor to the state department under Himary Clinton where he will have opportunity to influence international treaties -- and you know how the constitution regards international treaties - don't you ?

[ChumpDumper]

you are comparing the position of attorney advisor to the OLG to that of legal advisor to the state department under Himary Clinton where he will have opportunity to influence international treaties -- and you know how the constitution regards international treaties - don't you ?If Ted Olson, John Bellinger and Ken Starr(!) don't have a problem with his appointment, why specifically do you?

[implacable44]

If Ted Olson, John Bellinger and Ken Starr(!) don't have a problem with his appointment, why specifically do you?

I am sorry - should Ted Olson, Ken Starr and John Bellinger be the basis of all the opinions in the world? I mean, if they say it is okay - we should all just fall in line ?

[ChumpDumper]

I am sorry - should Ted Olson, Ken Starr and John Bellinger be the basis of all the opinions in the world? I mean, if they say it is okay - we should all just fall in line ?They certainly are more reputable than you.

Why specifically do you have a problem with this nomination?

I mean besides the fact Glenn Beck, et.al., told you to....

[implacable44]

They are ? oh well I will take that under advisement...

Why don't you have a problem with his nomination besides the fact that Obama, Olberman , et.al., told you not to ?

I already told you why. Try to read.

[ChumpDumper]

They are ? oh well I will take that under advisement...

Why don't you have a problem with his nomination besides the fact that Obama, Olberman , et.al., told you not to ?The 55 Republicans that unanimously approved his last appointment to State also had some influence as well.


I already told you why. Try to read.Not specifically. What are you specifically saying he is going to do with what you perceive to be his influence on treaties?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

ah yes the ol' so-and-so-told-you stance. i'm sure everyone that states this weak offense is there on location covering every single facet of the topic they are talking about so that they get from-the-source confirmation........... :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

ah yes the ol' so-and-so-told-you stance. i'm sure everyone that states this weak offense is there on location covering every single facet of the topic they are talking about so that they get from-the-source confirmation........... :rolleyesWhen was the first you heard of this guy?

Fox News

The main problem with sources like that is if you never bother to check any further on the subject.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

When was the first you heard of this guy?

Fox News?

are you an on location reporter on everything you comment about?

[ChumpDumper]

are you an on location reporter on everything you comment about?No really, where did you first hear about this guy?

I heard his name first on Fox News. Somebody was spouting off about his wanting to apply sharia law to US cases. All it took was a couple of clicks to find out it was complete bullshit -- but I understand a lot of people don't bother.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ah, the hubbub grows.

One time, the Supreme Court held that execution of minors was unconstitutional as a matter of American law and then, after reaching that conclusion, noted in dicta that the conclusion found support in the way that the world views such things, too. Never afraid to misapprehend the methods of jurisprudence, conservative commentators -- hellbent on scaring up Red Scares and Widespread Fear of Liberals -- simplified the effort for their masses by incorrectly stating that the opinion had been based on international law (omitting that whole tricky part about the Court's preceding conclusion that under American law, the execution of minors was unconstitutional)!!! As we've seen, the Nine Terrorists at Number One First Street want nothing more than to internationalize American law and, frankly, have just made it a common practice to decide every case without regard to American law or precedent. Conservative commentators have been there to ensure that their adherents "know" about the erosion of reliance upon American law and the grave threat that even considering what anyone else might think about an emerging question of law and public policy might will undoubtedly undermine the American way of life. After all, if those panty-waisted Austrians think that executing minors is untenable, it's all the more reason to think that we should probably be executing minors -- maybe even those who haven't been convicted of crimes!!!

[FaithInOne]

Someone pull up that old Supreme Court Obama quote complaining how the Constitution doesn't address Redistribution of Wealth and only gives the Government "Negative Rights", meaning it tells the government what they can't do but doesn't tell them what they can do waaaaaaaaaaa. :lmao :depressed

[ElNono]

Someone pull up that old Supreme Court Obama quote complaining how the Constitution doesn't address Redistribution of Wealth and only gives the Government "Negative Rights", meaning it tells the government what they can't do but doesn't tell them what they can do waaaaaaaaaaa. :lmao :depressed

Alberto Gonzales for the win...

[Yonivore]

Arlen Specter is kicking himself in the ass about right now...He's gone from being able to prevent Obama's nominee from being stalled in the Judiciary Committee to be just another punk Democrat.

It takes the vote of at least one minority member for a nominee to be passed out of Committee.

Good Luck with that Mr. President...especially if your nominee is any further to the left than Souter.

[ChumpDumper]

Arlen Specter is kicking himself in the ass about right now...He's gone from being able to prevent Obama's nominee from being stalled in the Judiciary Committee to be just another punk Democrat.

It takes the vote of at least one minority member for a nominee to be passed out of Committee.

Good Luck with that Mr. President...especially if your nominee is any further to the left than Souter.You're expecting more obstructionism from Republicans?

Easy call.

[Yonivore]

You're expecting more obstructionism from Republicans?

Easy call.
Cool by me...I hope the seat goes unfilled.

[Yonivore]

Come to think of it, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Souter's decision to retire was cemented by Specter's defection. He knew Specter would lick Obama's balls on the new appointment and, so, when he realized the worst that could happen would be a nominee that could get by Llindsay Graham [i.e., someone of the same caliber as himself], he felt safe in chucking it to them and, as he says, "leaving the best job in the worst city."

Enjoy retirement Justice Souter.

[ChumpDumper]

Cool by me...I hope the seat goes unfilled.Because you hate America.

Understood.

[Yonivore]

Because you hate America.

Understood.
If that's the way you care to see it...then, everyone of the Democrats that attempted to block every appointment made by President Bush hate America.

You forget the how the Democrats behaved over Sam Alito and Justice Roberts, I guess.

[ElNono]

Come to think of it, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Souter's decision to retire was cemented by Specter's defection. He knew Specter would lick Obama's balls on the new appointment and, so, when he realized the worst that could happen would be a nominee that could get by Llindsay Graham [i.e., someone of the same caliber as himself], he felt safe in chucking it to them and, as he says, "leaving the best job in the worst city."

Enjoy retirement Justice Souter.

What prevents Specter to switch to 'independent' for a month to fulfill the requirement, then switch back to democrat?

[ChumpDumper]

If that's the way you care to see it...then, everyone of the Democrats that attempted to block every appointment made by President Bush hate America.

You forget the how the Democrats behaved over Sam Alito and Justice Roberts, I guess.No shit dumbass -- and what did you and all the board Republicans say when Democrats did it?

[Yonivore]

What prevents Specter to switch to 'independent' for a month to fulfill the requirement, then switch back to democrat?
They'd laugh him out of the chamber. But, aside from that, I'm not sure if it would qualify him as being in the minority or, if it did, if they still wouldn't require a vote from a Republican.

You have to remember, these are rules written by Democrats.

[Yonivore]

No shit dumbass -- and what did you and all the board Republicans say when Democrats did it?
Well, that doesn't matter now, does it? I still hope the seat goes unfilled.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, that doesn't matter now, does it?:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Well, Republicans really don't matter when it comes to the functioning of government now. If they try to stall a qualified candidate, it will only shine a spotlight on everything else they are trying to obstruct.

[TheProfessor]

Arlen Specter is kicking himself in the ass about right now...He's gone from being able to prevent Obama's nominee from being stalled in the Judiciary Committee to be just another punk Democrat.

It takes the vote of at least one minority member for a nominee to be passed out of Committee.

Good Luck with that Mr. President...especially if your nominee is any further to the left than Souter.
From HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/how-obamas-supreme-court_n_194688.html) (yeah, I know...):

As a copy (PDF) of the Judiciary Committee's rules for the 111th Congress clearly shows, a member of the minority party does have to cast a vote in favor of a nominee in order to end committee debate over that nominee.

"The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be case by the minority."

Perhaps more nefariously, Republicans in the Judiciary Committee could hold up a hypothetical nominee simply by not showing up at all. "Six Members of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business," read the rules. "Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business."

It does seem clear that the GOP has a few maneuvers up its sleeve if they get hysterical about Obama's choice for the Court.

So how could Dorf be wrong? The Majority Leader in the Senate has the power, it seems, to go around the Judiciary Committee's process. A source familiar with the rules of the Senate notes that "a judicial nomination may be discharged from a committee by unanimous consent." However, since -- in this hypothetical scenario -- Republicans are already objecting to the nominee, it seems likely that unanimous consent would fail.

That said, the source adds, "A motion to discharge a nominee from committee is also in order, but if there is objection to that motion, it must lie over a day. On the next day, you move to executive session to the motion to discharge, the vote on proceeding to executive session is majority vote, however, once you are on the motion to discharge it can be filibustered, so you would need 60 votes on the motion to discharge and then presumably on the nomination too."

In short: There is a parliamentary path to getting a stalled Supreme Court nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate floor. That process would, like the ultimate confirmation vote, involve getting the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster just to get the nomination to the Senate floor. But with a bigger pool of Republicans (including some of like mind) it would seem likely that the White House could get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

[Yonivore]

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Well, Republicans really don't matter when it comes to the functioning of government now. If they try to stall a qualified candidate, it will only shine a spotlight on everything else they are trying to obstruct.
There's not much else they can obstruct...the rest of this fiasco completely belongs to Democrats for the next two years.

[Yonivore]

From HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/how-obamas-supreme-court_n_194688.html) (yeah, I know...):

As a copy (PDF) of the Judiciary Committee's rules for the 111th Congress clearly shows, a member of the minority party does have to cast a vote in favor of a nominee in order to end committee debate over that nominee.

"The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be case by the minority."

Perhaps more nefariously, Republicans in the Judiciary Committee could hold up a hypothetical nominee simply by not showing up at all. "Six Members of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business," read the rules. "Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business."

It does seem clear that the GOP has a few maneuvers up its sleeve if they get hysterical about Obama's choice for the Court.

So how could Dorf be wrong? The Majority Leader in the Senate has the power, it seems, to go around the Judiciary Committee's process. A source familiar with the rules of the Senate notes that "a judicial nomination may be discharged from a committee by unanimous consent." However, since -- in this hypothetical scenario -- Republicans are already objecting to the nominee, it seems likely that unanimous consent would fail.

That said, the source adds, "A motion to discharge a nominee from committee is also in order, but if there is objection to that motion, it must lie over a day. On the next day, you move to executive session to the motion to discharge, the vote on proceeding to executive session is majority vote, however, once you are on the motion to discharge it can be filibustered, so you would need 60 votes on the motion to discharge and then presumably on the nomination too."

In short: There is a parliamentary path to getting a stalled Supreme Court nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate floor. That process would, like the ultimate confirmation vote, involve getting the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster just to get the nomination to the Senate floor. But with a bigger pool of Republicans (including some of like mind) it would seem likely that the White House could get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.
I'm betting if it gets that far, there are principled Democrats -- even if only a few -- that won't carry Obama's water.

But, we'll see.

[ChumpDumper]

There's not much else they can obstruct...the rest of this fiasco completely belongs to Democrats for the next two years.Whatever it is, it's better than the fiasco that was the years Republicans controlled everything.

[Yonivore]

Whatever it is, it's better than the fiasco that was the years Republicans controlled everything.
If you like the government controlling everything and doing a shitty job of it, yeah, I'm betting you're pretty happy.

[ChumpDumper]

If you like the government controlling everything and doing a shitty job of it, yeah, I'm betting you're pretty happy.They aren't controlling everything.

What are they controlling in your life, right now, that they did not two years ago?

[clambake]

They aren't controlling everything.

What are they controlling in your life, right now, that they did not two years ago?

they made him emo.

[ChumpDumper]

they made him emo.He was emo when he was The Ressurrected [sic] One.

[Yonivore]

they made him emo.
My mortgage lender and two of the three major automobile companies. They're going for my health care provider and my energy provider next.

[ChumpDumper]

They are not controlling the automobile companies. Those companies asked for loans.

And really, how does this all control you personally? What is different?

[clambake]

My mortgage lender and two of the three major automobile companies.
they must have really fucked up. i wish he wouldn't try to help you.

They're going for my health care provider and my energy provider next.
how are they going after you through them?

[Yonivore]

they must have really fucked up. i wish he wouldn't try to help you.
Refinanced with another company...but, yeah, I wish he'd of stayed away from the too...but, he didn't and now, he's after the car companies.


how are they going after you through them?
Well, he's taking the 10% share of common stock owned by the UAW and turning that into a 40% share of the company and doing the reverse for bond holders...

[ChumpDumper]

Refinanced with another company...but, yeah, I wish he'd of stayed away from the too...but, he didn't and now, he's after the car companies.So he has nothing to do with your finance company.



he's taking the 10% share of common stock owned by the UAW and turning that into a 40% share of the company and doing the reverse for bond holders...That is the plan GM executives came up with.

[clambake]

so, he's going after them when they came begging for money.

that's emo.

[Yonivore]

So he has nothing to do with your finance company.
It's why I left, moron.


That is the plan GM executives came up with.
Now who's being an idiot. You mean, of course, the executives Obama didn't fire (or force to resign).

[Yonivore]

so, he's going after them when they came begging for money.

that's emo.
Actually, my original lender didn't ask for the fucking money and now, the government won't let them pay it back.

[ChumpDumper]

My mortgage lenderWho was your mortgage lender?

[Yonivore]

Who was your mortgage lender?
Who's your proctologist and how much does he charge to pull your head out of your ass once a week?

[clambake]

Actually, my original lender didn't ask for the fucking money and now, the government won't let them pay it back.

so, you changed for no reason.........other than emo.

[ChumpDumper]

Who's your proctologist and how much does he charge to pull your head out of your ass once a week?As you said, you are anonymous, so one can only conclude you are afraid to say who your lender was since someone might actually fact check whatever bullshit you vomit up.

You did get horribly burned yesterday, and one need not be a proctologist to see how much your butt hurts.

[Yonivore]

As you said, you are anonymous, so one can only conclude you are afraid to say who your lender was since someone might actually fact check whatever bullshit you vomit up.

You did get horribly burned yesterday, and one need not be a proctologist to see how much your butt hurts.
So, you deny the government has taken control of some banks?

And, you deny the government forced some banks to take TARP money they now won't allow the banks to repay?

That's not hard to find facts on ChumpDumper.

[boutons_deux]

"Erik Erickson: The nation loses the only goat f*&king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement."

Eric Erickson (@ewerickson (http://twitter.com/ewerickson)), Editor-in-Chief of RedState (http://redstate.com/)

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/red-states-erik-erickson-writes-judge-s

[ChumpDumper]

So, you deny the government has taken control of some banks?That has been happening for the better part of a century.


And, you deny the government forced some banks to take TARP money they now won't allow the banks to repay?

That's not hard to find facts on ChumpDumper.I asked you which one lent money to you.

[Yonivore]

That has been happening for the better part of a century.

I asked you which one lent money to you.
Find the list and it's one of those... I know of at least one bank that was forced to take TARP money and then, when they tried to pay it back, the government wouldn't take the money.

[Yonivore]

If we survive Obama, economically, I believe his actions -- with respect to TARP --will become a scandal that plagues the rest of his time in office. There are already talks of investigation and possible crimes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If we survive Obama, economically, I believe his actions -- with respect to TARP --will become a scandal that plagues the rest of his time in office. There are already talks of investigation and possible crimes.

:lmao

who's talking about them?

[Yonivore]

:lmao

who's talking about them?
Bailout cop busy on the beat (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/)

Him


Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the $700 billion TARP, says he has 20 criminal probes and calls for changes to prevent fraud.

[TheProfessor]

Bailout cop busy on the beat (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/)

Him

"Our recommendations are forward looking and there are no vulnerabilities that can't be addressed," Barofsky said. "The balance of what we're trying to do is to inform, bring transparency and make appropriate recommendations."
Yeah, sounds like he's bringing down the house. Look out, Obama!

And by the way, does anyone want to weigh in on the qualifications of those individuals Obama might nominate to the Supreme Court? I'd be interested.

[ChumpDumper]

Find the list and it's one of those... I know of at least one bank that was forced to take TARP money and then, when they tried to pay it back, the government wouldn't take the money.So is it your former lender or not?

Just name it and we can settle it pretty quickly.

[Yonivore]

So is it your former lender or not?

Just name it and we can settle it pretty quickly.
Nothing's ever settled with you...you're ignoring the argument to focus on an anonymous poster.

Were there banks that were forced to take TARP money or not? (and, in typical CD style), yes or no?

Is the government refusing to accept payment from banks?

Yes or no?

Try not to be distracted by the shiny objects now...

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing's ever settled with you...you're ignoring the argument to focus on an anonymous poster.

Were there banks that were forced to take TARP money or not? (and, in typical CD style), yes or no?

Is the government refusing to accept payment from banks?

Yes or no?

Try not to be distracted by the shiny objects now...You made a specific claim about your former lender.

Now you are running away from it.

Funny.

And sad.

[Yonivore]

You made a specific claim about your former lender.

Now you are running away from it.

Funny.

And sad.
My personal situation is irrelevant to establishing the facts that a) banks (mine included) were forced to take TARP money and that b) banks (mine included) were prevented from paying it back.

You knowing where I bank doesn't change the facts...just means you get your news from a very narrow outlet.

[ChumpDumper]

My personal situation is irrelevant to establishing the facts that a) banks (mine included) were forced to take TARP money and that b) banks (mine included) were prevented from paying it back.

You knowing where I bank doesn't change the facts...just means you get your news from a very narrow outlet.So it was a bank.

Ok, that narrows it down.

Which bank?