Justice Souter to Retire
FYI.
The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. The retirement is likely to take effect only once a successor is confirmed.
The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.
Souter had no comment Thursday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.
This is frustrating though…
The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court’s only female justice.
Can we please please please just try to get the most qualified person instead of obsessing about gender/race/sexual orientation/ancestry/etc.???
I didn’t think so.
Different kinds of people have different kinds of experiences that color their judgments. The court is possibly the only place where diversity is absolutely vital.
A bunch of men deciding the abortion issue, for example, would exclude a very important perspective on the matter that they can’t possibly replace, no matter how educated, experienced and empathetic they might be.
The best person for the job is quite likely a female, because only a female can provide that perspective, and a court is supposed to examine things from every angle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1020 hrs
Perhaps we could get a Hispanic, lesbian, unweb mother of 14. That would address a lot of issues that need to be addressed.
Most qualified individual? What are you smokin?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1026 hrs
That assumes that they should be making decisions based on their personal experiences. They shouldn’t. They should make decisions based on the Constitution weighted with the history of precedent. What the judges’ personal biases are regarding abortion, for example, shouldn’t be relevant.
Posted by Owen on May 01, 2009 at 1031 hrs
“What the judges’ personal biases are regarding abortion, for example, shouldn’t be relevant.”
Bravo, Owen, so you reject the abortion litmus test which the right-to-life loonies always insist upon when we have a Republican President?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1156 hrs
I am unconcerned with a judicial appointee’s personal views on the matter. I am extremely interested in their judicial opinion.
Posted by Owen on May 01, 2009 at 1208 hrs
I don’t think that diversity should necessarily be sought solely for the sake of diversity. However, our individual backgrounds invariably color how we see the world, and that can’t help but influence how we do our jobs. A judge can certainly consciously attempt to minimize his personal beliefs from their thought process, but no person can eliminate them entirely.
Everyone thinks judicial opinions are activist when they don’t agree with them. When courts uphold reasonable restrictions on abortion, the left wing thinks they’re being activist. When the same courts uphold reasonable restrictions on gun purchases, the right wing thinks they’re being activist. It’s usually the people on the far ends of the ideological spectrum who advocate for the most activist, agenda-driven interpretations of the law. Most of us just want someone who is bright, thoughtful, and reasonable, and value a balanced set of perspectives on the court. I doubt there are many folks who want nine Antonin Scalias on the court, or nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.
I have little doubt that whomever the president nominates will be eminently qualified. It’s pointless to discuss whether they’re the most qualified because decisions like these are inherently subjective.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 01, 2009 at 1318 hrs
How about a rural attorney who has spent their entire career west of the Mississippi?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1341 hrs
What are the odds his first nominee doesn’t have any tax issues???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1519 hrs
Here is the checklist (in order of importance):
1. Correct gender?
2. Correct ethnic background?
3. On the correct side of all politically-correct issues and liberal agenda items?
4. Pro-choice?
5. Anti-family?
6. Anti-business?
7. Anti-strict constructionist?
8. Tax issues? (Well, we actually don’t care about that, but we have to ask anyway ...)
9. Law background?
Posted by hsgbdmama on May 01, 2009 at 1533 hrs
Well, if law background is #9 then Randy Koschnick has a fighting chance.
I have no doubt the individual will be qualified. You may dislike his or her perspective, but they will undoubtedly be qualified. Really, who’s the last Supreme Court justice nominated who was professionally unqualified? I think all nine members of the present court are qualified to be there. Would you disagree?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 01, 2009 at 1655 hrs
Maybe Oboma will appoint tax and spend Doyle to the bench. Thus we can finally get someone of quality to run the state like Scott Walker. JK
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1714 hrs
Maybe Oboma will appoint tax and spend Doyle to the bench
Sorry, but a middle-aged white balding male doesn’t hit on all the politically-correct points (although he has the anti-business thing down ...).
Posted by hsgbdmama on May 01, 2009 at 1750 hrs
Really, who’s the last Supreme Court justice nominated who was professionally unqualified?
Harriet Miers?
Can we please please please just try to get the most qualified person instead of obsessing about gender/race/sexual orientation/ancestry/etc.???
Would you ask this question if the Supreme Court was all women? all black? all minority? I suspect that many would argue that any such court could only exist if it were purposely created that way, i.e. affirmative action. But what were all those years when women and minorities were excluded from these private “clubs” except affirmative action for white protestant males?
I also want the “most” qualified. But, good grief, how do you define “most?” And how many people would have a knee-jerk belief that any woman or any minority could only have been appointed because of affirmative action?
I don’t like the idea of a “woman’s seat” or an “African American” seat or a “minority seat,” And, gosh, what about two-fers? But unless we pay attention to these things, the default will be “white male” seats.
The law is like an elephant and justice is supposed to be blind. But a blind person who feels the elephant’s trunk has a very different view of the elephant than the one who feels the elephant’s tail. I do believe that an all-male, all-white Supreme Court, no matter how honorable and how qualified, cannot see the whole elephant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 1951 hrs
The real tragedy in this is that, because the GOP is so pathetic, we won’t get to enjoy the hacks on both sides employing the opposite arguments they used when Bush’s judicial appointments were “controversial”.
I genuinely pine for watching GOP Senators, Hannity, and right-wing hack bloggers whine about the rights of the minority and standing up for their principles and blah blah, while at the same time watching Dem Senators, left-wing hack bloggers and Keith Olbermann whine about how obstructionist the minority is being and how the Constitution says nominees deserve an up or down vote.
Me: “Didn’t you employ the exact opposite argument just a couple of years ago?”
Hack blogger: “The other side did it so why are you complaining that I do it?”
Me: “So let me get this straight, you’re being a hypocrite and the credibility of your argument rests on what your opponent did?”
Hack blogger: “Uhhh…”
Me: “Thought so”.
It would have been like when I asked Owen why one advisory referendum was good but another was bad.
Damn. I mean seriously, damn.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 01, 2009 at 2018 hrs
I have no doubt the individual will be qualified. considering Obama’s record of appointing people to his cabinet who have not been qualified, I seriously wonder about his judgement about this. Obama has not good judgement in the past 100+ days.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 02, 2009 at 0139 hrs
I’ll bite. Start naming people who have been unqualified. And for the record, a guy like Tom Daschle was eminently qualified for his job and ran into a personal snafu that made him politically unpalatable. Having problems with issues in your personal life has no impact on one’s professional qualifications. Being undesirable is different from being unqualified.
Also, please indicate the basis for which you feel each person is unqualified. Thanks!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 02, 2009 at 1112 hrs
RS, the Constitution does not spell out any qualifications, so absent your lack of comment, I assume that you believe that Harriet Miers is/was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
If that is indeed the case, your question is pointless, IHMO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 02, 2009 at 1159 hrs
Total Entries: 19649
Total Comments: 129787
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/09/2012 07:17 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 135
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/09/2012 07:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).