Souter to retire

[Lemon law]

I agree that Souter was basically a conservative with some Liberal tendencies, making him a swing vote. And any Obama appointment is likely to be more liberal pushing the balance of the Court only slightly leftward.

The real question is what bones will Obama toss to the GOP in the process. Will Obama somewhat duplicate the Clinton practice of letting the GOP select some nominees they don't horribly object to, thereby helping to avoid a last ditch filibuster fight.

Looking beyond the Souter replacement, I can envision some real GOP fights if Obama gets the opportunity to replace some of the real conservative justices like Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and that real rascal named Scalia. I do not expect any of them to step down voluntarily, but health issues are never
guaranteed by a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

 

[trooper11]

yeah this isnt going to be very exciting. he will pick a judge that meets his template.

he has made it well known that he wants a judge that has life experiences that allow them to relate to things like minority rights, gay rights, lower economic levels, etc. Obama is of the idea that a person's personal opinions/experiences is an essential part of a judges ability to fairly apply the rule of law. Of course itll be a liberal that reflects Obama's ideals.

as far as throwing a bone to the Republicans, that would be suprising if he did. He is obviously reveling in the republican's minority status and doesnt look too interested in doing anything 'nice' for them. Not that he has to, but lets not throw around the bipartisanship word, becuase thats not going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ironwing
Janet currently has the crappiest, no-win job in Washington and is an experienced Fed prosecutor. Maybe she'll request a switch, assuming she doesn't have 2012 VP ambitions.

who?

Napolitano

bwahahahahaha. Any ticket with Napoleantano is a losing ticket.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree that Souter was basically a conservative with some Liberal tendencies, making him a swing vote.

Swing vote? What are you smoking? He's no more a "swing vote" than Scalia is a "swing vote".

And any Obama appointment is likely to be more liberal pushing the balance of the Court only slightly leftward.

Agreed that the candidate will be a lefty, but that doesn't change the court much because Souter was already always on the same side of the ruling as this new candidate is likely to be. The real danger is when one of reasonable ones steps down.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: trooper11
Not that he has to, but lets not throw around the bipartisanship word, becuase thats not going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

Agreed. All that campaign talk about bipartisanship and such was a bunch of lies, just like every other politician's lies. No "change" there.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep, we'll for sure get a radical leftist appointed, but it should be quite hilarious to see BHO and the MSM try to claim the person is a "moderate"... just like they did with SOUTER.

ftfy

 

[PokerGuy]

I already saw CNN touting some possible candidates. They had them listed as "moderate/liberal". In other words -- left fringe.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Pretty funny that a mainstream judge like Souter - appointed by a Republican, the same one who appointed the incompetent, radical Thomas - is called a 'liberal'...Ginsburg a liberal? She was the suggestion of the *Republicans* to Clinton, a moderate who they would offer easy approval to if he didn't appoint a liberal.

Ok, Thomas certainly is on the extreme edge. I'll give you that. But Souter has a definite liberal lean (although he is fairly moderate). And Ginsburg is heavilly liberal leaning. Ginsburg isn't an extremist, but he is getting pretty far from being a moderate.

Pages #46, 47 give good data on their voting history.
Thomas: 82.2% conservative votes (highest on record).
Souter: 37.4% conservative votes
Ginsburg: 31.2% conservative votes
For reference, Marshall: 21.1% conservate votes (lowest on record).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dullard
Ginsburg isn't an extremist, but he is getting pretty far from being a moderate.

Look, she aint pretty, but there's no need to stoop to calling her a man.

 

[Robor]

JFC I just walked through the lunch room and there's a TV with CNN on it. On the screen I see 'BREAKING NEWS' and a story about Souter retiring. FFS it's not BREAKING NEWS anymore. I hate the sensationalism in 'news' these days. 'Is your childs toothpaste killing them? Find out tonight @ 10!'. :disgust:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor
JFC I just walked through the lunch room and there's a TV with CNN on it. On the screen I see 'BREAKING NEWS' and a story about Souter retiring. FFS it's not BREAKING NEWS anymore. I hate the sensationalism in 'news' these days. 'Is your childs toothpaste killing them? Find out tonight @ 10!'. :disgust:

Yellow journalism has been around since the dawn of newspapers.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Robor
JFC I just walked through the lunch room and there's a TV with CNN on it. On the screen I see 'BREAKING NEWS' and a story about Souter retiring. FFS it's not BREAKING NEWS anymore. I hate the sensationalism in 'news' these days. 'Is your childs toothpaste killing them? Find out tonight @ 10!'. :disgust:

Yellow journalism has been around since the dawn of newspapers.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky but it seems like it's been getting worse.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Think he'll go with a black or hispanic? Or maybe another female?

Oh, it will be 'identity politics' for sure.

Race, gender, ideology etc before legal competence/experience.

The MSM has been talking about that (what teh WH wants) with nary a mention of demonstrated legal competence/experience.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Oh, it will be 'identity politics' for sure.

Race, gender, ideology etc before legal competence/experience.

The MSM has been talking about that (what teh WH wants) with nary a mention of demonstrated legal competence/experience.

Fern

You guys know that Supreme Court justices used to often not be lawyers at all right? That being said, I'll bet right here and now that whoever Obama appoints will be highly competent and highly experienced. Any takers?

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Think he'll go with a black or hispanic? Or maybe another female?

Oh, it will be 'identity politics' for sure.

Race, gender, ideology etc before legal competence/experience.

The MSM has been talking about that (what teh WH wants) with nary a mention of demonstrated legal competence/experience.

Fern

Obama is on record saying he will choose judges based on "heart" and "empathy"; he can't be bothered with little things like legal competence.

 

[Lemon law]

I for one do hope that Obama does consult the GOP leadership on his SCOTUS pick, if nothing else, I don't want to hear the GOP piss and moan that the democrats are simply ignoring them.

I am confident that the GOP will piss and moan anyway, but at least Obama has a chance to prove the GOP are distorting reality when he consults them.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: newnameman
Obama is on record saying he will choose judges based on "heart" and "empathy"; he can't be bothered with little things like legal competence.

Exactly, those are mutually exclusive things after all.

What's Harriet Miers up to these days?

 

[BoberFett]

I have more faith in Obama's pick than Bush's.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have more faith in Obama's pick than Bush's.

Even though I'm a supporter of Obama that's not really saying much. I think I'd trust the Ghost of Richard Nixon to make a better choice than Bush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Craig234
Pretty funny that a mainstream judge like Souter - appointed by a Republican, the same one who appointed the incompetent, radical Thomas - is called a 'liberal'...Ginsburg a liberal? She was the suggestion of the *Republicans* to Clinton, a moderate who they would offer easy approval to if he didn't appoint a liberal.

Ok, Thomas certainly is on the extreme edge. I'll give you that. But Souter has a definite liberal lean (although he is fairly moderate). And Ginsburg is heavilly liberal leaning. Ginsburg isn't an extremist, but he is getting pretty far from being a moderate.

Pages #46, 47 give good data on their voting history.
Thomas: 82.2% conservative votes (highest on record).
Souter: 37.4% conservative votes
Ginsburg: 31.2% conservative votes
For reference, Marshall: 21.1% conservate votes (lowest on record).

I appreciate the reasonable tone of your post - but my point is how flexible and shifting the terms 'conservative/liberal right/left are.

I mean if there was a lawsuit to bring back slavery, we expect them all to vote 'no', but wouldn't that be fit into the numbers you use with a yes vote counting as 'conservative'?

Even if it's really radical right? They have to pick 'right/left' to assign to the votes regardless of how 'radical' the issues are. So a judge voting 'no' on a radically left-wing issue gets the same +1 for his conservative voting record as one that votes yes on a radical right-wing issue. It's pretty meaningless and even misleading.

IMO we really haven't had any 'left-wing' justices in at least many decades. (You might remember the court shutting down much of FDR's New Deal, and before that they were mostly very right-wing - especially the inanely right-wing courts of the end of the 19th century who decided nearly all cases in favor of big business, when the definition of corporations as 'legal persons' was put into law and Plessy v. Ferguson allowing segregation was passed.)

There were a handful of more liberal justices decades ago.

People think Earl Warren was some 'arch left-winger', failing to realize his Republican background, appointed by a Republican, and that his 'radical' positions were for things like declaring 'separate but equal' unconstitutional since it was unequal and unfair, and the radical notion thatthe rights criminals do have, they should understand, for the criminal justice system to work better. I think people take a lot of the 'good police behavior' today for granted that his court helped bring about.

You can't really call Ginsburg - again, the *suggested moderate from the Republicans* - 'liberal' because she voted on the 'liberal side' of the issues that a right-wing court heard.

A 'moderate' would do the same thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Think he'll go with a black or hispanic? Or maybe another female?

Oh, it will be 'identity politics' for sure.

Race, gender, ideology etc before legal competence/experience.

The MSM has been talking about that (what teh WH wants) with nary a mention of demonstrated legal competence/experience.

Fern

Typical BS partisan baseless attacks. They don't say much about 'competence/experience' because those are assumed requirements with Obama.

They don't say much about the judge being 'honest' or not having a background of violent felonies either, so by your lousy logc, that means he'll pick a dishonest felon.

But hey, the idiot right has to say something, right?

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: newnameman
Obama is on record saying he will choose judges based on "heart" and "empathy"; he can't be bothered with little things like legal competence.

Exactly, those are mutually exclusive things after all.

What's Harriet Miers up to these days?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: newnameman
Obama is on record saying he will choose judges based on "heart" and "empathy"; he can't be bothered with little things like legal competence.

Exactly, those are mutually exclusive things after all.

What's Harriet Miers up to these days?

Thank goodness there was a congress willing to stand up to the president selecting an idiot. Good thing the congress is not solidly democrat right now..........errrrr.... Basically Obama can put up the liberal equivalent of Harriet, and the congress will go right along with it. Exactly the kind of thing those of us who didn't want all parts of the government in the same hands wanted to avoid.

Hopefully Obama comes up with a qualified candidate, but it looks to me like much like Bush's picks, actual competence goes out the window in favor of other factors like gender, political ideology, race etc. The candidate selected will be 1) a woman 2) a liberal 3) preferably a minority -- regardless of competence. Hopefully I am proven wrong on this one.

What's interesting is that many supremes end up not being at all like people expected when they are nominated. If Bush had known how Souter was going to turn out, he would have never nominated him. I like a balanced court, hopefully we'll get someone qualified, that's the best we can ask for.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: newnameman
Obama is on record saying he will choose judges based on "heart" and "empathy"; he can't be bothered with little things like legal competence.

Exactly, those are mutually exclusive things after all.

What's Harriet Miers up to these days?

Thank goodness there was a congress willing to stand up to the president selecting an idiot. Good thing the congress is not solidly democrat right now..........errrrr.... Basically Obama can put up the liberal equivalent of Harriet, and the congress will go right along with it. Exactly the kind of thing those of us who didn't want all parts of the government in the same hands wanted to avoid.

Hopefully Obama comes up with a qualified candidate, but it looks to me like much like Bush's picks, actual competence goes out the window in favor of other factors like gender, political ideology, race etc. The candidate selected will be 1) a woman 2) a liberal 3) preferably a minority -- regardless of competence. Hopefully I am proven wrong on this one.

What's interesting is that many supremes end up not being at all like people expected when they are nominated. If Bush had known how Souter was going to turn out, he would have never nominated him. I like a balanced court, hopefully we'll get someone qualified, that's the best we can ask for.

Don't forget who it was that suggested to Bush that he nominate Harriet Miers in the first place...Harry Reid.

 

[Lemon law]

I will not engage in the speculation on whom Obama will nominate, I just hope it will not be a government by trial balloon Lonnie Guineer type thing that was a Clinton mistake.