Justice Souter to retire

[Guest Aloysius]

Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

by Nina Totenberg

 

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

 

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

 

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court's age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

 

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court's more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

 

In addition, Souter was apparently satisfied that neither the court's oldest member, 89-year-old John Paul Stevens, nor its lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery over the winter, wanted to retire at the end of this term. Not wanting to cause a second vacancy, Souter apparently had waited to learn his colleagues' plans before deciding his own.

 

Given his first appointment to the high court, most observers expect Obama will appoint a woman, since the court currently has only one female justice and Obama was elected with strong support from women. But an Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court.

 

Souter was a Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, largely on the recommendation of New Hampshire's former Gov. John Sununu, who had become the first President Bush's chief of staff.

 

But Souter surprised Bush and other Republicans by joining the court's more liberal wing.

 

He generally votes with Stevens and the two justices who were appointed by President Bill Clinton — making up the bloc of four more liberal members of the court, a group that has usually been in the minority throughout Souter's tenure.

 

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

 

President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.

 

By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is anticipated to have a 60th Democrat, as the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to approve the recount that elected Democrat Al Franken over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in that state.

[Westside Steve]

Bill Ayers is being fitted for a robe as we speak.....

WSS

[Mr. T]

Bill Ayers is being fitted for a robe as we speak.....

WSS

 

ROFLMAO!! That was Great Steve!

[budcarson]

If he is supposedly looking to name a woman, can I get odds here on a re-nom for Harriet Miers?

[Westside Steve]

If he is supposedly looking to name a woman, can I get odds here on a re-nom for Harriet Miers?

 

 

But NOW she'd be praised and her detractors branded misogynists.....

WSS

[calfoxwc]

and Bush nominated him. "sigh" Trying to be non-partisan and "good friends" with liberals, he nominated a moderate.

 

Meanwhile, Obama will probably nominate:

 

Angela Yvonne Davis (born January 26, 1944, in Birmingham, Alabama) is an American political activist and university professor who was associated with the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Davis was also a notable activist during the Civil Rights Movement, and a prominent member and political candidate of the Communist Party USA. Since leaving the Communist Party, she continues to identify herself as a democratic socialist, and is currently a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

 

She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley during an effort to free a black convict who was being tried for the attempted retaliatory murder of a white prison guard who killed three unarmed black inmates. Davis fled underground and was the subject of an intense manhunt. Davis was eventually captured, arrested, tried, and then acquitted in one of the most famous trials in recent U.S. history.

 

Davis is a graduate studies Professor Emeritus of History of Consciousness at the University of California and Presidential Chair at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She retired in Spring 2008. She works for racial and gender equality, and for gay rights and prison abolition. She is a popular public speaker, nationally and internationally, as well as a founder of the grassroots prison-industrial complex-abolition organization Critical Resistance.

 

 

[Mr. T]

The biggest threat is from the APPOINTED Federal Judges sprinkled through out the land legislating from the benches.

 

They hold us by the short hairs with the law, specifically the 14th Amendment, et.al. There ARE no CONSTITUTIONALISTS on the benches any longer.

 

Citizenship Clause

Main article: Citizenship Clause

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

 

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[7]

 

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[8] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[9] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[10] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[11] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[12] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[9]

 

The Constitution does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

 

Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.

Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions which demonstrate an intent to give up U.S. citizenship.[13]

For a long time, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of U.S. citizenship.[14] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept[citation needed] in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Am...es_Constitution

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

That'll teach you, Alo...

[heckofajobbrownie]

Marc Ambrinder:

 

 

"...Let's face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.

 

...His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.

 

...Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Less known but equally potent candidates would be Stanford's Pam Karlan, an intellectually brilliant liberal, and Johnnie Rawlinson, an appeals court judge and the first African American woman appointed to that circuit. Of all these candidates, Wood and Karlan are probably the brightest lights, and Wood would be most palatable to conservatives. Cato's Ilya Shapiro, a former Wood student, said that she'd offer a "seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, this making her the best nominee for supporters of constitutionalism.

 

If Obama has a short list, it is probably much longer than mine, and includes many judges I haven't considered.

 

Watch for Vice President Joe Biden, a former chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, to play a significant role in this process. Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, has more experience vetting potential nominees than just about anyone else in Washington, and the process of compiling an initial list of nominees has been given to his office.

 

Two very senior administration officials politely refused to comment or speculate about Souter or possible appointments. I am told that orders have come down from the top -- as in the chief of staff's office -- that no one is to talk about this to reporters.

 

So what's the process going to be like? Will it be partially public -- the White House having decided to selectively leak the names of certain more conservative jurists that Obama meets? Will he meet with a range of folks? Will he meet with a pro-life judge? Or -- does he segregate politics from the process entirely?

 

First, Obama compiles his list. Then, he tries to keep the list a secret. Does he begin to compile vetting teams before Souter formally steps down? Unclear -- although the VP's office already has some staff capacity.

 

The public will be treated to a three-act play; Act 1 -- who SHOULD Obama pick? Act 2 -- who DOES Obama pick? Act 3 -- what does the GOP do? Spoiler alert! Don't call this is a battle; Obama's going to get his nominee confirmed. The question is whether he does so while enhancing his status and his party."

 

[calfoxwc]

If he nominates a moderate Constitutionalist, I'll praise his selection.

 

But he has said he will do otherwise.

 

We'll see what he actually does.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, Cal, we're all awaiting your take on the Hamdan decision.

[Guest Aloysius]

That'll teach you, Alo...

Figured it was best to let them exhaust their knowledge on the subject early in the process. Cal's given us Angela Davis, T's given us Wikipedia, Steve's given us Bill Ayers. Now, the real discussion can begin.

 

 

To be honest, I don't like the fuzzy "compassion" talk that Obama's been using since the beginning of the campaign. It sounds good, but I'm not sure what it means re: what kind of justice he'll nominate.

 

I think Akhil Amar would be a great SCt justice, but he's someone who sticks to the type of "abstract legal theory" Obama seems to dismiss in his mini-speech. Anyway, he probably killed his chances when he wrote that he would have voted with the minority in Roe v. Wade.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I was surprised to see Kimba Wood's name being thrown around again today. I wonder if she'd finally get the call.

 

Looks like Sotomayor is the odds-on favorite, though, huh? Would also give him a relatively easy confirmation, which I'm guessing they're looking for. They've got plenty of other battles to fight.

[Guest Aloysius]

Once went to hear Sotomayor deliver a speech and engage in a Q&A. Obviously very smart and a knowledgeable jurist. Not sure how great she'd be in the confirmation hearings, though. On the charm/charisma scale, she's more of an Alito than a Roberts.

[Guest mz.]

Are you guys even concerned about any confirmation hearing issues? I'm kind of relieved that we can actually focus on the qualities of the judge himself/herself than having to parade them around the Westminster Kennel Club and worry about what guys like cal think.

[Westside Steve]

Anyway, he probably killed his chances when he wrote that he would have voted with the minority in Roe v. Wade.

 

But it's good to know that ideology and quotas (not any kind of respect for the constitution nor understanding of the reasons roe might be bad law) are out in the open as official requirements.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Do you know what a quota is? It doesn't seem like you do.

 

There's certainly no quota here.

 

And why shouldn't ideology be a factor? Of course ideology is a factor. Among many others.

[Westside Steve]

Do you know what a quota is? It doesn't seem like you do.

 

There's certainly no quota here.

 

That's as tiresome as ever.

Making a decision based on increasing the number of women (or any mionority) to the court is quota ish.

 

And why shouldn't ideology be a factor? Of course ideology is a factor. Among many others.

 

It might as well I guess. Original intent is probably an ideology. Depends on what you want.

 

 

I'm being serious by saying the constitution is little more than a relic today and probably for many years back.

I'm not even sure we'd be beter off if we went back to Marshall....

WSS

[Guest Aloysius]

Marc Ambrinder:

 

"...Let's face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.

 

...His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.

 

...Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Less known but equally potent candidates would be Stanford's Pam Karlan, an intellectually brilliant liberal, and Johnnie Rawlinson, an appeals court judge and the first African American woman appointed to that circuit. Of all these candidates, Wood and Karlan are probably the brightest lights, and Wood would be most palatable to conservatives. Cato's Ilya Shapiro, a former Wood student, said that she'd offer a "seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, this making her the best nominee for supporters of constitutionalism."

Actually, this Emily Bazelon article makes me think that Republicans would demagogue like hell if Wood were nominated.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd tend to think that Obama, being of this legal world and familiar with many of the players and their opinions, already has a very short list of nominees that dates back to before the election. I wouldn't be surprised if the vetting had already taken place, or the decision already made.

 

Not being of this world, I'm going to defer to Tupa and Alo on the eventual pick. I'd only be forwarding something I read and agreed with, and that's only so interesting.

[Guest Aloysius]

Oh, please don't defer to me on this stuff. As Tupa can attest, I pretty much don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

But you're right that the snap judgments on whether a nominee is a "good pick" or not are mostly pointless. Only scholars and people working in the White House are familiar enough with the potential justices' work to point out all the possible controversial opinions/articles that could get a nominee Borked.

 

Fortunately, the confirmation process affords enough time for enterprising law students to put together analyses of a nominee's major cases. A few years ago, a bunch of Yale law students put together a thorough, critical account of Alito's judicial record. I'm sure some young Federalist Society members will do the same for whoever becomes Obama's nominee.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I haven't studied Con Law since college. So I'm out. Those were some great classes though.

 

And yet everyone I know who was a lawyer at the time warned me not to be a lawyer. Many described how much the business end of the job was squeezing out the legal end, so much that they didn't much feel like a lawyer anymore. Plus, they never saw the sun.

 

I like seeing the sun.

[ballpeen]

No matter who makes the appointment or who gets appointed, they all have various opinions on the litmus test issues. I suppose there is no getting around that.

 

The problem I have with many in the judiciary is the seeming attack on black letter law and the effort to shade things gray.

 

Over the years many have proclaimed the constitution is a living, breathing document. I tend to disagree and think it is more static than some suggest.

 

That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common. For the most part, the constitution should be viewed as black letter and we shouldn't keep chipping at the buttress issues as sooner or later, the whole document will fall. Status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

While many of the justices in the past may not have met my personal approval for what ever reason, I think by a large they all understand the weight of the position and once appointed, they all seem to take a step or two towards the center.

 

That is especially true when one political side of the court seems to gain a numbers advantage. There are usually one or two who will swing the other way as I don't think any of the justices want to be a part of a run away court that attacks the country and document they are there to uphold.

 

Also, as we have seen in the past, once appointed, there is no political pressure any longer. Some may think that is dangerous, but I trust that once a person has been elevated to such a position, the really bad apples have been weeded out and exposed.

 

If a really bad candidate is nominated, the senate can knock that down easy enough, and trust they would....members of either side taking part.

 

When it come to the big issues, I don't think politicians are as partisan as we think. This is a big issue.

I honestly don't think members of either party are just going to rubber stamp their Presidents nomination if in their heart of hearts they know the person is a bad or unqualified candidate who is going to cause the country harm.

 

I can't recall all the nominations, but I don't really remember any who were simply unqualified or unable to have performed the job, and I don't recall any who were elevated to the position who were simply unqualified or took a radical activist position, because the sitting justices tend to rein those people in a bit because as stated earlier, the history and weight of the position tends to make people step away from the fringes and move more towards the center.

 

No doubt that over the years there have been decisions I didn't agree with, and took a opposite view of the law and how it was written, but I don't think any majority opinion was baseless nor well thought out. At most I have thought the interpretation was stretching the bounds past what I would have though reasonable.

[Guest mz.]

That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common.

 

Sure it is.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Not that I care if y'all have guns or not, but the notion that we need a well regulated Militia is antiquated as all hell. This is offered as a mere example, not to get the NRA Krew all riled up.

 

Come on, I have a hard time believing those who wrote the Constitution didn't have the foresight to allow changes as need be.

 

[ballpeen]

Things can change. And usually it is to allow more rights....Civil Rights, Woman Rights, abortion.

 

It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.

 

That is what can't change.

 

It is a static document in that regard.

 

You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.

 

 

[Guest mz.]

You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.

 

That was the point I was trying to make. Just because the Constitution allows for a militia, it doesn't mean it is a need in modern society.

 

[ballpeen]

It doesn't mean it doesn't either.

 

The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.

 

Militias are very necessary.

 

The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.

[Guest mz.]

The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.

 

The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.

 

[ballpeen]

The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.

 

 

No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.

 

[calfoxwc]

What good is the Constitution if it can be politically

 

adjusted to take out certain parts Obama doesn't like?

 

But let Bush try to change it... oh... and all hell would break loose.

 

The politics of self-serving power control is out of the bag, and running

 

wild like a crazed rhino.