Justice Stevens Retires

[jimmy olsen]

This will probably drive turnout up a bit

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36317045/ns/politics-more_politics/

[Valmy]

Turnout of what?

Anyway have a good life Justice Stevens.

[Grey Fox]

I hope no chickens out this time & the republicans actually have to filibuster the nomination & not just emit the idea of filibuster to block it.

[jimmy olsen]

Turnout of what?

Anyway have a good life Justice Stevens.

Of the election obviously.

Whoever Obama nominates will piss some people off and they'll be more likely to vote.

[Faeelin]

Whoever Obama nominates will piss some people off and they'll be more likely to vote.

I didn't care about Obama's socialist death panels, his bailouts of the banks, and the way he's surrendering to terrorists, but 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood in the SCOTUS? We must stop him now!

[The Minsky Moment]

I guess Ginsburg announces next year then.

[Valmy]

Of the election obviously.

Whoever Obama nominates will piss some people off and they'll be more likely to vote.

Anybody who pays enough attention to notice Supreme Court nominations and cares enough to have an opinion is a political junkie who is going to vote anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

Whoever Obama nominates will piss some people off and they'll be more likely to vote.

I didn't care about Obama's socialist death panels, his bailouts of the banks, and the way he's surrendering to terrorists, but 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood in the SCOTUS? We must stop him now!

Who's on the Supreme Court matters as much all those things put together. 

[Admiral Yi]

Who's on the Supreme Court matters as much all those things put together.

Stevens is not a swing vote, he's part of the solid liberal bloc.  Replacing him with another liberal is not going to change anything.

Even if he were swing vote, how much would that change?  Maybe some changes at the margin of Roe v. Wade?  Compare that to the consequences of a meltdown of the financial system.

[KRonn]

Cool. Now Obama can appoint a Conservative to replace Liberal Stevens. That way Obama can feel he's fishing for some Independent voter support.   

[dps]

I'd read a few days ago that he was planning on retiring, but hadn't announced a date yet.  I didn't realize it, but if he would have stayed until mid-2012, he'd have beaten Douglass' record for the longest tenure on the court.

[Eddie Teach]

Anybody who pays enough attention to notice Supreme Court nominations and cares enough to have an opinion is a political junkie who is going to vote anyway.

[Sheilbh]

I really think the Supreme Court should have term limits (or, like Cardinals, a retirement age). 

I mean Stevens, God bless him, probably should retire at 90 but I think it sort of cheapens it when Justices hold out for a President with whom they are generally sympathetic or retire when that's the case.  But also he was appointed by Ford.  Surely 35 years in a highly important and influential position is more than enough

[grumbler]

I really think the Supreme Court should have term limits (or, like Cardinals, a retirement age).   

Probably true, but that train left the station when the Constitution was written.  Trying to get a constitutional amendment over this issue (when it has never been an issue) is impossible.  Maybe someday, when the issue actually becomes an issue, it can be raised.

I mean Stevens, God bless him, probably should retire at 90 but I think it sort of cheapens it when Justices hold out for a President with whom they are generally sympathetic or retire when that's the case.  But also he was appointed by Ford.  Surely 35 years in a highly important and influential position is more than enough

Surely Stevens agrees that he has been on the bench long enough.  He is, after all, retiring when he could have set a record in just a few years, and is in excellent health (still playing tennis daily when the court isn't in session or he can squeeze in a game).  The argument that Justices should not be allowed to retire on their own terms seems short-sighted, as in "you cannot retire now because it would allow a President whom you think will appoint a justice you agree with to nominate your successor."  Why have justices serving when they don't want to?

[ulmont]

Yes, 18 year terms would be better (each president then gets 2 nominees if you stagger the 9). 

Constitutional amendment required though.