This just won't be as fun when the minority can't threaten to filibuster.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/
QuoteNBC: Souter to retire from Supreme Court
His retirement would give Obama his first chance to nominate a justice
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire, after more than 19 years on the court, once the current term ends in late June, NBC News reported Thursday night.
A retirement by Souter, 69, would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings. His departure, however, isn't likely to change the court's liberal-conservative composition, because his successor will almost certainly be moderate to liberal, NBC News correspondent Pete Williams reported.
At 69, Souter is not the oldest member of the court. He has indicated in the past that he wanted to leave Washington and return to his native New Hampshire. Souter's early signaling of his intention to step down is almost certainly a move to let the White House get prepared to nominate a replacement, Williams reported.
Other candidates for retirement
The other candidates for retirement are Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, and Stevens, 89, although neither has betrayed any intention of leaving. Ginsburg, who is undergoing chemotherapy following surgery for pancreatic cancer in February, said she wants to serve into her 80s.
Speculation about Souter's plans had begun to swirl this week because the eight other justices were known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the Supreme Court term that begins in October. Souter had been the lone holdout, hiring no one.
In 1990, Republican President George H.W. Bush nominated Souter for the position of Supreme Court justice. Little was known of his positions on issues at the forefront of the news, such as abortion, and it was hoped by conservatives that his literal interpretations of the Constitution would work in their favor. However, Souter's interpretations of the Constitution were more liberal than the Republican Party had hoped.
According to Biography Resource Center Online, during the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case, Souter voted to uphold the Roe v. Wade decision governing a woman's right to an abortion and also voted to prohibit prayer at high school graduation ceremonies in Lee v. Weisman.
In defense of his abortion stance, Souter wrote that, as a nation, we have come to rely on the "availability of abortion" and to overturn Roe v.Wade would be "a surrender to political pressure ... so to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."
Since that time he consistently voted on the more liberal sides of issues.
Souter attended Harvard University, graduating Phi Betta Kappa in 1961 with a major in philosophy. Before returning to Harvard to attend law school, Souter won a Rhodes Scholarship to Magdalen College at Oxford.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
QuoteWASHINGTON – Justice David Souter has told the White House that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the court's term in June, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night.
The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_scotus_souter_retiring
i choose this thread to live.
Yay!!!
Weatheman 1 - Timmy 0
What the hell! I made my thread first!
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
Yay!!!
Weatheman 1 - Timmy 0
Timmy self bumped. Tsk, tsk. Has he no sense of fair play?
he has a reputation to live up to...
This is a nicer thread all around. Much better then having that mexican guy just talking to himself.
Weatherman beat you fairly.
Quote from: Viking on April 30, 2009, 10:48:49 PM
he has a reputation to live up to...
He's learned well the ways of cheating from his role model Bill Belichick
Well, Tim did post the whole thing, while Weatherman just posted a link.
Tim 1 point , Weatherman 1/2 a point.
Quote from: Siege on April 30, 2009, 10:56:06 PM
Well, Tim did post the whole thing, while Weatherman just posted a link.
Tim 1 point , Weatherman 1/2 a point.
But popular support has fallen behind Weatherman. As a Military man you must agree that team support is worth more then most anything else.
Quote from: Siege on April 30, 2009, 10:54:21 PM
Weatherman beat you fairly.
I beat him by 38 seconds. :contract:
:hug:
Now you both can shut the hell up.
:o
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:13:00 PM
Now you both can shut the hell up.
this is why SJ lost. pre-karma :P
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2009, 11:28:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:13:00 PM
Now you both can shut the hell up.
this is why SJ lost. pre-karma :P
i was trying to merge and add a first post at beginning to screw em both over, but darn board software wouldn't let me :lol:
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:38:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2009, 11:28:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:13:00 PM
Now you both can shut the hell up.
this is why SJ lost. pre-karma :P
i was trying to merge and add a first post at beginning to screw em both over, but darn board software wouldn't let me :lol:
You have to split out one of your older posts and just edit it, then merge. it goes by time stamp i assume :D
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:38:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 30, 2009, 11:28:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2009, 11:13:00 PM
Now you both can shut the hell up.
this is why SJ lost. pre-karma :P
i was trying to merge and add a first post at beginning to screw em both over, but darn board software wouldn't let me :lol:
So you gave it to your fellow Aztec? For shame.
Sadly, this will not affect the decision on Shakespeare. We'll have to wait for Stevens to go before the poor old Bard can get his rep back.
QuoteGranholm mentioned as possible Supreme Court justice candidate
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
Gov. Jennifer Granholm's name is being bandied around today on the morning news shows as a potential replacement for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who reportedly has told the White House he's retiring.
Granholm, 50, a Harvard law graduate and former state attorney general and federal prosecutor, is mentioned as one of a handful of candidates who may be appointed by President Barack Obama to replace Souter, a liberal jurist and 18-year veteran of the high court.
"President Obama may want to pick somebody young, perhaps somebody from politics ... a former governor," said Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University, during an interview on CNN.
Advertisement
Dershowitz said Granholm is among many "excellent, excellent picks" for the court, but he acknowledged he may be a little biased because Michigan's governor is a former student of his.
The short list making the rounds today comes from external sources, not from the White House. The names on the list are mostly women. But Dershowitz said President Obama is not obligated to choose a woman or a minority to replace Souter, who is a white male.
Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for the governor, said: "Gov. Granholm has made it clear on numerous occasions that she intends to complete her term as governor."
Granholm, whose term expires in 2010, has denied interest in the job.
We could have gotten rid of her. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on May 01, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
QuoteGranholm mentioned as possible Supreme Court justice candidate
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
Gov. Jennifer Granholm's name is being bandied around today on the morning news shows as a potential replacement for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who reportedly has told the White House he's retiring.
Granholm, 50, a Harvard law graduate and former state attorney general and federal prosecutor, is mentioned as one of a handful of candidates who may be appointed by President Barack Obama to replace Souter, a liberal jurist and 18-year veteran of the high court.
"President Obama may want to pick somebody young, perhaps somebody from politics ... a former governor," said Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University, during an interview on CNN.
Advertisement
Dershowitz said Granholm is among many "excellent, excellent picks" for the court, but he acknowledged he may be a little biased because Michigan's governor is a former student of his.
The short list making the rounds today comes from external sources, not from the White House. The names on the list are mostly women. But Dershowitz said President Obama is not obligated to choose a woman or a minority to replace Souter, who is a white male.
Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for the governor, said: "Gov. Granholm has made it clear on numerous occasions that she intends to complete her term as governor."
Granholm, whose term expires in 2010, has denied interest in the job.
We could have gotten rid of her. :(
It will come one day....it has to come eventually... :hug:
At least as a SC justice, she can't hurt the economy much any more.
I don't think Souter leaving, and being replaced by the Obama admin will have much effect on the SC ideology? Seems to me that he's pretty liberal and will be replaced by same.
Our only homosexual SC justice retiring? Martinus, man the barrigaydes!
Quote from: KRonn on May 01, 2009, 11:41:27 AM
I don't think Souter leaving, and being replaced by the Obama admin will have much effect on the SC ideology? Seems to me that he's pretty liberal and will be replaced by same.
Not really. The left just gets to lock down Souter's seat from twenty more years to forty more years.
I wonder how much Obama's going to get for the position?
Quote from: Savonarola on May 01, 2009, 11:25:24 AM
We could have gotten rid of her. :(
On the bright side, I don't think Monica Conyers has denied interest yet. :P
We need someone who understand how real law enforcement in America works, and who will get tough on the darkies and such.
I think Sheriff Joe would be an excellent candidate.
Joe's quite busy at the moment. Perhaps Madame Justice Palin? :bowler:
Quote from: Fate on May 01, 2009, 02:44:33 PM
Joe's quite busy at the moment. Perhaps Madame Justice Palin? :bowler:
Really, it is the least Obama can do considering she threw the election to him!
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
Really, it is the least Obama can do considering she threw the election to him!
I had hopes for her. I thought if she worked hard re-establishing her reformist credentials, brushed up on some national policy and just occassionally did a media show every now and then (to remind people she existed) that she'd be quite a plausible and attractive campaign. That's not the strategy she's taken. It seems like she's looked for every opportunity to appear mad and taken it :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2009, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
Really, it is the least Obama can do considering she threw the election to him!
I had hopes for her. I thought if she worked hard re-establishing her reformist credentials, brushed up on some national policy and just occassionally did a media show every now and then (to remind people she existed) that she'd be quite a plausible and attractive campaign. That's not the strategy she's taken. It seems like she's looked for every opportunity to appear mad and taken it :(
How do you figure?
We get Alaskan news pretty regularily in our local newspaper, and it sounds like she's busy being governor in Alaska. :mellow:
Then she might get the Yukon vote but for those of us who dont get the local news out of Alaska she has looked pretty silly on national Canadian and American broadcasts - when she comes up that is.
Quote from: Siege on April 30, 2009, 10:56:06 PM
Well, Tim did post the whole thing, while Weatherman just posted a link.
Tim 1 point , Weatherman 1/2 a point.
ironically in a thread about law and justice, Tim was the one who broke the law.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2009, 03:04:32 PMHow do you figure?
We get Alaskan news pretty regularily in our local newspaper, and it sounds like she's busy being governor in Alaska. :mellow:
She seems to have made some odd choices. Literally a dreadful Attorney General nomination who seems to have suggested that rape within marriage is okay and had this deeply bizarre analogy when asked how he'd deal with cases involving gays:
Let me give you an analogy. I hate lima beans. I've never liked lima beans. But if I was hired to represent the United Vegetable Growers would you ask me if I liked lima beans? No. If I disliked lima beans? No. Because my job is to represent the United Vegetable Growers.I also believe she got into a big argument over an appointment that was to replace a Democrat, so I think that under Alaska law the Democrats get to choose a short-list. She rejected their short-list three times and tried to nominate various other people instead. I think she also said that the Democratic Senator (Begich?) should resign so there could be a special election because charges were dropped against Stevens.
That stuff isn't the quiet, focussed, reformist politics I think she needed to practise to re-defire her public image.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2009, 03:04:32 PM
How do you figure?
We get Alaskan news pretty regularily in our local newspaper, and it sounds like she's busy being governor in Alaska. :mellow:
:lol:
What happens if that 89-year old judge gets Alzheimers but still lives for another ten years? Can Congress or his peers fire him?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2009, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2009, 03:04:32 PMHow do you figure?
We get Alaskan news pretty regularily in our local newspaper, and it sounds like she's busy being governor in Alaska. :mellow:
She seems to have made some odd choices. Literally a dreadful Attorney General nomination who seems to have suggested that rape within marriage is okay and had this deeply bizarre analogy when asked how he'd deal with cases involving gays:
Let me give you an analogy. I hate lima beans. I've never liked lima beans. But if I was hired to represent the United Vegetable Growers would you ask me if I liked lima beans? No. If I disliked lima beans? No. Because my job is to represent the United Vegetable Growers.
I also believe she got into a big argument over an appointment that was to replace a Democrat, so I think that under Alaska law the Democrats get to choose a short-list. She rejected their short-list three times and tried to nominate various other people instead. I think she also said that the Democratic Senator (Begich?) should resign so there could be a special election because charges were dropped against Stevens.
That stuff isn't the quiet, focussed, reformist politics I think she needed to practise to re-defire her public image.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you have the Sarah Palin RSS feed or something?
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 01, 2009, 03:44:48 PM
What happens if that 89-year old judge gets Alzheimers but still lives for another ten years? Can Congress or his peers fire him?
Congress can impeach any Article 3 federal judge (district court, circuit court of appeals, or Supreme Court), which requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach and then two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict.
To date, 13 federal judges have been impeached and 7 convicted...one of whom is now in the House of Representatives.
Quote from: ulmont on May 01, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 01, 2009, 03:44:48 PM
What happens if that 89-year old judge gets Alzheimers but still lives for another ten years? Can Congress or his peers fire him?
Congress can impeach any Article 3 federal judge (district court, circuit court of appeals, or Supreme Court), which requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach and then two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict.
To date, 13 federal judges have been impeached and 7 convicted...one of whom is now in the House of Representatives.
LOL U RANG??
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweblogs.sun-sentinel.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fpalm%2Fblog%2F10404hastingsalcee.jpg&hash=5beade9d361678601e9b84e119ee62b0a20e3b74)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2009, 03:55:02 PM
Where do you get this stuff? Do you have the Sarah Palin RSS feed or something?
I'm an English student. I have lots of spare time :blush:
Quote from: ulmont on May 01, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Congress can impeach any Article 3 federal judge (district court, circuit court of appeals, or Supreme Court), which requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach and then two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict.
To date, 13 federal judges have been impeached and 7 convicted...one of whom is now in the House of Representatives.
Once the Democrats have their Senate supermajority, I would imagine that they'll start purifying the judiciary.
Headache.
Obama had an interesting statement about his search criteria. First independent and strong mind mind blah blah. But then a person who looks at more than abstract legal theories but also considers the impacts on regular people, their jobs, homes, safety etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
Obama had an interesting statement about his search criteria. First independent and strong mind mind blah blah. But then a person who looks at more than abstract legal theories but also considers the impacts on regular people, their jobs, homes, safety etc.
"Interesting" is one way to put it. He basically stated that he wants his candidate to ignore the law.
Well it will be interesting to see how the next USSC appointment war ends up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2009, 10:32:45 PM
This just won't be as fun when the minority can't threaten to filibuster.
Ah crap you are right. Well hopefully some Senator will say something hilariously stupid during the confirmation hearings to keep it fun at least.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 03, 2009, 07:53:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
Obama had an interesting statement about his search criteria. First independent and strong mind mind blah blah. But then a person who looks at more than abstract legal theories but also considers the impacts on regular people, their jobs, homes, safety etc.
"Interesting" is one way to put it. He basically stated that he wants his candidate to ignore the law.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2009, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2009, 10:32:45 PM
This just won't be as fun when the minority can't threaten to filibuster.
Ah crap you are right. Well hopefully some Senator will say something hilariously stupid during the confirmation hearings to keep it fun at least.
With Specter switched now, the one guaranteed vote in committee is gone. There has to be one GOP vote in favor, and he was supposed to be it. I think Graham is on the Judicial Committee, so maybe there's hope. It would have been easier if Specter hadn't switched in this case.
Quote from: KRonn on May 01, 2009, 11:41:27 AM
I don't think Souter leaving, and being replaced by the Obama admin will have much effect on the SC ideology? Seems to me that he's pretty liberal and will be replaced by same.
He's considered a liberal due to the company he has at work... most would be liberal next to Scalia and Alito.
Souter's an old-school NE mellow Republican, and his conservatism wasn't marked by rigid ideological principles,
but a reluctance to 'innovate' from the bench (left or right), and by his reverence for precedence. He was a classic
'c'conservative without being a 'C'onservative, which seems to confuse people, and the hooplah about him being a
'stealth' candidate for Poppa Bush.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2009, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2009, 10:32:45 PM
This just won't be as fun when the minority can't threaten to filibuster.
Ah crap you are right. Well hopefully some Senator will say something hilariously stupid during the confirmation hearings to keep it fun at least.
Well, since the Democratic leadership is at least as boneheaded as the old republican leadership, we can always hope for a Majority Filibuster! The Republican one was a real hoot! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2009, 02:34:46 PM
Well, since the Democratic leadership is at least as boneheaded as the old republican leadership, we can always hope for a Majority Filibuster! The Republican one was a real hoot! :lol:
:w00t:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 04, 2009, 02:16:17 PM
He's considered a liberal due to the company he has at work... most would be liberal next to Scalia and Alito.
Souter's an old-school NE mellow Republican, and his conservatism wasn't marked by rigid ideological principles,
but a reluctance to 'innovate' from the bench (left or right), and by his reverence for precedence. He was a classic
'c'conservative without being a 'C'onservative, which seems to confuse people, and the hooplah about him being a
'stealth' candidate for Poppa Bush.
I always wonder about how much a judge's ideology is based on the big political issues that only occassionally come before the Supreme Court and how much on the plethora of smaller, important cases that aren't perceived as 'political'.
I like that Souter's dream is to run a class based on comparative readings of Proust and Henry Adams :)