Supreme Court John Paul Stevens to retire
CNN
...not unexpected but newsworthy!
Printable View
Supreme Court John Paul Stevens to retire
CNN
...not unexpected but newsworthy!
He will be missed; practitioners before that Court, of any political stripe, hold Justice Stevens in the highest of high regard.
Let the nomination/confirmation battle begin.
I'm rooting for Solicitor General Elena Kagen.
I predict certain posters on this board will post other people's blog saying how horrible the next nominee is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
And some will post other people's blogs about how great the next nominee is.
You'll post a YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
darrin wants to see the birth certificate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You'll reply by asking me whether I posted it from work.
Do you ever actually start a thread?
clambake will continue his streak of irrelevant posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
history has shown that birth certificates hold great importance you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
^seeQuote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Nah, we've pretty much concluded that's what you do. I might comment on it, but you have proved you won't answer any questions like that. Too embarrassing, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Not too often. Most of the subjects are covered here sooner or later. Thread starting isn't necessarily an indicator of quality.Quote:
Do you ever actually start a thread?
Knowing Obama, he'll put up a mild left-center judge, and the Republicans will act like he's trying to confirm Ralph Nader or Michael Moore.
See, Elena Kagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
http://www.concurringopinions.com/ar...successor.htmlQuote:
The Stevens Resignation Is Not Contingent Upon the Confirmation of a Successor
posted by Tuan Samahon
The Above the Law blog has posted what purports to be a letter from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens to President Obama announcing the Justice’s resignation.
Interestingly, the resignation is not contingent upon the successor’s confirmation and appointment. “I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 371(b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.” (emphasis added).
That means the Court will operate at eight justices if no successor is confirmed and appointed in time for October with the “liberal” bloc of the Court down a vote.
Update: Over at the New Yorker news desk, Jeffrey Toobin thinks this non-contingent method of resignation was intended to aid President Obama in timely securing a replacement. In 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren resigned contingent upon his successor’s confirmation (the same technique used by O’Connor, among others). I assume that Chief Justice Warren also intended to benefit President LBJ by providing a parachute should the Fortas confirmation fail (as it did). Who is right, Stevens or Warren? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. Which helps a President more, contingent resignation or an unconditional resignation?
But it's not required for a SC Justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
he'll ask to see his or her law degree, and film footage of the graduation ceremony
Who cares. Obama will put another dem in. Nothing changes.
The complexion of the Court is more intricate than one justice's political affiliation, depending on the issue. I doubt Obama nominates someone as or more "liberal" than Stevens.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
it's required for darrin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No matter whom Magic Negro nominates, the Repugs will block/filibuser/NO!, like they have been doing to his other nominations, judicial and otherwise, in an effective attempt destroy Magic Negro.
McConnell and others are already trying to intimidate MN.
I say MN pack the court the way he wants, and the way dubya packed the court against citizens/employees/consumers/America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:rolleyes
Yeah, Dems are known for their rubber stamping of Republican nominees to the SCOTUS.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP leader, pledged to use the forthcoming confirmation process to "make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law."
http://www.salon.com/news/the_numero...ory/index.html
Boutons, please quit being racist. (srs)
EM, please GFY
IIRC, Stevens was put there by Reagan. I know at least one of the liberal judges was installed by a Republican. So it's not quite a slam dunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Then again, to expect Obama to put someone on the bench that isn't a liberal is stupid. He'd be committing political suicide if he tried nominating a Republican; stacking the SC court is a very strong privilege of the President, and I fully expect him to use it.
I thought Stevens was appointed by Ford.
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Your right he was appointed by Ford. I always thought John Paul Stevens was one of the better judges.
Judicial restraint is the new euphamism for judicial activism, which was the old euphamism for "a judge who decides cases the way that I want them decided."
and I remember President Bush working hard to consider "democratic" nominees to the Court.
Yes, and Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Hugo Black was appointed by FDR. Eisenhower appointed Harlan and Brennan and Warren (for Chief Justice).Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
It doesn't always work out as planned!
fify :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I'm betting it will be either her or Jennifer Granholm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supergirl
I think it would be politically expedient in many ways for President Obama to moderate on this choice for a variety of reasons. Obviously, with the mid-terms looming and a significant amount of dissatisfaction in the electorate, going with a moderate is a safe selection. I think going with a moderate also tends to best replace Justice Stevens, who has tended to the left, but is hardly a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Appointing someone who is a relative moderate (as that term is seen within the viewing public) would tend to maintain some ideological continuity on the Court.
As importantly, it also seems fairly obvious that this will not be his last appointment. If he feels the need to entrench the left of the Court, he's going to have other opportunities to do that.
"going with a moderate is a safe selection"
fuck no. The spineless, kumbaya Dems need to face down the obstructionist, shameless Repugs with an in-your-ugly-face progressive nomination, and ram it through.
Damn the Torpedoes and damn the REpugs.
And raise SCOTUS to 11 judges,and put in two more progressives to neuter the 5 SCOTUS radical fringe conservatives.