Stevens To retire from USSC

[woolfe9999]

No, Obama is not stupid enough to say the word "activist". But if what one does is do everything to describe an activist judge, just without using the word, well, then it's my right to call it what it is.

Fair enough. I'll wait until it becomes available online so that I can determine whether or not he actually does that.

- wolf

 

[cubby1223]

Here's the thing, Obama could have come out today and said he is going to appoint a replacement who will uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.

But he didn't.

He specifically said he wants a judge who will not allow powerful interests to crowd out regular people.

While to many that sounds all warmy-touchy-feely, it's not the job that judges are supposed to do. You don't want judges to make decisions based on what they personally feel is "fair", because everyone has a differing opinion on what is "fair". That job is up to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here's the thing, Obama could have come out today and said he is going to appoint a replacement who will uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.

But he didn't.

He specifically said he wants a judge who will not allow powerful interests to crowd out regular people.

While to many that sounds all warmy-touchy-feely, it's not the job that judges are supposed to do. You don't want judges to make decisions based on what they personally feel is "fair", because everyone has a differing opinion on what is "fair". That job is up to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

That's one interpretation. Another is that he disagrees with the SCOTUS having carved out full First Amendment rights for corporations because he sees that as judicial activism favoring powerful interests rather than following the Constitution. There was a pretty good back and forth between majority and dissent in that case on what the correct interpretation of the Constitution was on that issue, one which Obama as a Constitutional lawyer is qualified to hold an opinion on.

- wolf

 

[dmcowen674]

.

What type of replacement will Obama choose to replace?

Whatever one pisses off Republicans most will be best :thumbsup:

 

[MotF Bane]

Whatever one pisses off Republicans most will be best :thumbsup:

Since you clearly hate America, why haven't you left for Somalia yet?

 

[shiner]

Since you clearly hate America, why haven't you left for Somalia yet?

Exactly....my offer to buy him a one way ticket if he promises to stay there still stands....

 

[Pepsei]

Because that's what picking someone for the highest court in the land is all about. Slapping the other side in the face.

slapping the other side's face is not the reason, it's the end result/ or bonus depending which side you're on.

presidents like to pack the court. look at FDR. sometimes you'll get someone who doesn't vote the way you wanted.

 

[MovingTarget]

How so?

Stevens is the leader of the liberals on the court.

Good thing Scott Brown won his senate seat.
Now the GOP can play by the rules the Democrats setup under GWBs term.

Replacing a moderate/liberal with another moderate/liberal doesn't really gain that side any particular advantage than if say, Thomas or Scalia were retiring. If Stephens had retired during the Bush years, then that would have an affect as well. That WOULD be a change in the idealogical makeup of the court.

As per your other points, I will decline to comment as other posters here have addressed everything I would say about them.

 

[JSt0rm]

obama will put a muslim commie in! We are doooooomed! fear doom fear doom.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe there will not be a huge partisan fight over Steven replacement. Stevens may now be regarded as a liberal, but when he was appointed he was more of a centrists. And if Obama appoints someone about as but not more Liberal as Stevens, it will not change the balance of the Court. If Obama is smart, he will float a list of names, and pick the centrist leaning Liberal most acceptable to the R's. And if the R's veto that one, Obama can keep nominating more Liberal appointees until the R's pay the public relations price is continual and senseless opposition. And if the R's play that game too long, the D's will be justified in modifying or eliminatng the filibuster in Senate rules.

The real Obama SCOTUS fight will occur if he ever gets a chance to replace Alito, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts. And then the R's will go ballistic in opposition. But the R's may be well advised to save their overuse of the filibuster until then.

 

[shira]

How so?

Stevens is the leader of the liberals on the court.

Good thing Scott Brown won his senate seat.
Now the GOP can play by the rules the Democrats setup under GWBs term.

You mean like the "rules" the Democrats followed when they confirmed Roberts and Alito?

 

[nageov3t]

Replacing a moderate/liberal with another moderate/liberal doesn't really gain that side any particular advantage than if say, Thomas or Scalia were retiring. If Stephens had retired during the Bush years, then that would have an affect as well. That WOULD be a change in the idealogical makeup of the court.

pretty much my thoughts exactly.

this isn't nearly as interesting as a conservative retiring would be.

 

[Craig234]

Roberts I would agree on, but Alito was a horrible pick.

This doesn't make much sense to me, as Alito and Roberts are very similar justices. One's just nicer looking/smoother. Both are horrible, BTW.

 

[hal2kilo]

This doesn't make much sense to me, as Alito and Roberts are very similar justices. One's just nicer looking/smoother. Both are horrible, BTW.

Agree. Both were and are corporate whores. Now activists to boot.

 

[Craig234]

Justice Stevens is a very good, moderate Justice. He's liberal by being contrasted with right-wing radicals.

If we appointed radical Shis law justices, all 9 of the current justices might be called 'liberals' compared to the other side.

The situation is partisan garbage. Stevens was appointed by a *Republican*, and approved 98-0. Compare that level of cooperation, non-politicized approval, to current.

We need someone like Stevens - not only to replace Stevens, but to replace the right-wing radicals if they resign. The era of rightist Federalist Society radicals is terrible.

They've already done things including greatly damaging democracy by supporting corporations as people in terms of constitutional rights to dominate our political system.

 

[Patranus]

This is a bit off topic but has a supreme court justice ever been assassinated?

 

[Mursilis]

This:

The situation is partisan garbage. Stevens was appointed by a *Republican*, and approved 98-0. Compare that level of cooperation, non-politicized approval, to current.

Followed by this:

We need someone like Stevens - not only to replace Stevens, but to replace the right-wing radicals if they resign. The era of rightist Federalist Society radicals is terrible.

They've already done things including greatly damaging democracy by supporting corporations as people in terms of constitutional rights to dominate our political system.

is just hilarious!

 

[hal2kilo]

This is a bit off topic but has a supreme court justice ever been assassinated?

No, but this was a very popular sign in the south when I was a kid...

Assasinate Earl Warren!

Amazing somehow things just don't change in that part of our country. Glad I moved west when I grew up.

 

[Patranus]

No, but this was a very popular sign in the south when I was a kid...

Assasinate Earl Warren!

Amazing somehow things just don't change in that part of our country. Glad I moved west when I grew up.

I would in no way support this but I was just curious as it would be a very effective way to change the completion of the court when your party is in power.

Just curious. that is all.

 

[nageov3t]

I never knew that Stevens was the only protestant on the court.

that's kind of interesting.

 

[Craig234]

This:



Followed by this:



is just hilarious!

Perhaps you can explain the humor:

Republicans earlier, before their current radical right shift, nominated a good, moderate judge, and Democrats unanimously approved the Republican nominee.

In contrast, after that, the Federalist Society was created and represents a radical right strain with now large power in the legal system, including a number of Supreme Court Justices (including the Chief Justice, who said in his confirmation phase he'd never been in the Federalist Society as far as he could remember, but was reminded of his role in a leadership position.)

Today, we have a far right Republican Senate who boycotts nearly everything for politics, and pushed all kinds of terrible policies, ready to contest any nominee for politics.

What we need are more good judges like Stevens, not radical rightists who want to change our constitution's interpretation for the worse.

What's funny about it?

I'd guess it's that you are so blind you confuse the terrible right-wing behavior with the criticism of that behavior. If so, you have nothing to say.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is a bit off topic but has a supreme court justice ever been assassinated?

A US Supreme Court Justice has never been assassinated. State Supreme Court Justices have...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Honestly, any of Obama's picks are going to be 'qualified' on paper, just like most nominations outside of Miers. Even someone like Kagan who doesn't have judicial experience, but supposedly has a great legal mind. Also, the Supreme Court is a pretty different level and entity than any other judicial experience.

I think that whoever is nominated will be qualified on paper, but I hope that the nomination also adds some sort of diversity to the Court at the same time.

 

[hal2kilo]

I never knew that Stevens was the only protestant on the court.

that's kind of interesting.

Yea it's a regular Opus Dei convention going on in the SCOTUS.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here by the way is Obama's comments on the retirement and the sort of replacement he is looking for. This is the one that Cubby says is him wanting an "activist":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36321270#36327204

- wolf