SCOTUS Associate Justice Stevens to retire

[Zarquon]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Says He Will Retire This Summer

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest
member and leader of its liberal bloc, says he will step down
when the court finishes its work for the summer.

His announcement Friday in Washington had been hinted at for
months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/politics/10stevens.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1)
Process:
For the court, Justice Stevens’s departure will be the end of an era. He is the longest-serving justice by more than a decade, and he is the last remaining justice to have served in World War II. (He joined the Navy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/us_navy/index.html?inline=nyt-org), where he served as a cryptographer, the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked.) His leaving will not, however, change the composition of the court; although he was appointed in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/gerald_rudolph_jr_ford/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Republican, he has become one of its most reliably liberal members during his nearly 35-year tenure, as the court drifted ever rightward.
Still, for Mr. Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_chicago/index.html?inline=nyt-org) (where he was a colleague of Judge Wood), the vacancy is an unmistakable chance to put his stamp on the direction the court takes for the next several decades. Mr. Obama is already engaged in an unusual public confrontation with the court over its recent decision in the Citizens United case, which lifted strict limits on corporate spending in elections. On Friday, during a brief appearance in the Rose Garden, he made clear that the case was very much on his mind.
He vowed to “move quickly” in announcing a nominee. Senior advisers said they expected a decision within the next several weeks. The president said he would look for a candidate who possessed what he described as qualities similar to that of Justice Stevens: “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”
And, in what legal scholars took as a clear swipe at the Citizens United decision (for which Justice Stevens wrote the dissent), the president said he would look for a justice who “knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.”
The White House already has a Supreme Court nomination team in place, with the selection process run by the new White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, and overseen by Rahm Emanuel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/rahm_emanuel/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the chief of staff. Once a nominee is picked, Mr. Bauer’s wife, Anita Dunn, who is Mr. Obama’s former communications director, will coordinate with advocacy groups. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during some of its most contentious confirmation fights, is also likely to play a crucial role.

[Zarquon]

Obama had better not "compromise" on this.

[Michael]

When it comes to analysis of US legal issues, especially analysis of SCOTUS, I've always found Scott Lemieux to be the best 'expert' on the topic. For example, he called the Sotomayor appointment (it was top of his 'short list').

Anyway, here's his thoughts on the topic:

Filling the Stevens Seat.

For reasons I'll explain next week, among the candidates likely to actually be on the shortlist, Diane Wood seems to me to be the best choice for the Supreme Court. At this point, though, I like the idea of thinking about some other potential candidates who would, in an ideal world, receive stronger consideration. Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick have asked a variety of luminaries to suggest good nominees. I'm glad to see prominent law and courts scholars Kim Lane Scheppele and Lee Epstein tout Harold Koh, and they both make a compelling case for him.

But if we're talking about desirable but implausible nominees, I'd like to point out that Pamela Karlan -- a very sophisticated constitutional theorist with both the intellectual firepower and acerbic wit to take on the Court's conservative wing -- belongs near the top of any progressive's shortlist.
Source (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=filling_the_stevens_seat)

I will expect the actual appointee to be one of these names - just based on this guy's track record. It seems likely that Diane Wood will be the nominee.

Btw, Scott Lemieux is a Canadian - that's probably why he's a good analyst of SCOTUS - he's not part of the US political establishment. :lol:

[Americano]

Republicans are already announcing the usual strong resistance to any liberal candidate nominated by administration, so let's hope the vetting process is thorough with no surprises.

[Michael]

Republicans are already announcing the usual strong resistance to any liberal candidate nominated by administration, so let's hope the vetting process is thorough with no surprises.

There will be surprises for sure. It will be surprising how the Republicans will be able to make up surprising and hypocritical shit and the media will play along reporting the surprising lies with a very loud bullhorn. :shrug:

Scalia in particular is notorious for this. He's the most blatantly partisan member of SCOTUS and he's the one who attacked Sotomayor for potential partisanship. :lol:

We can expect lots of this no matter who the appointee is. Indeed, it doesn't matter who the appointee is, the arguments against them will be the same.

Though, I suppose none of this is actually 'surprising' if one follows US politics closely. What is surprising is that the game is repeated over and over again.

[Donkey]

Anderson Cooper last night called the Republicans out for threatening to filibuster even before they know who the nominee will be.

Ridiculous.

[Lily]

Have the Republicans rolled out that old chestnut "activist judges," yet? No matter, I'm expecting the Party of No to continue on its No path.

[The Drunk Guy]

I agree. Obama could pick Michael Steele and the Republicans would put up a fight.:shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

I agree. Obama could pick Michael Steele and the Republicans would put up a fight.:shrug:

I should certainly hope my party would put up a fight over Michael Steele :D

[toolatebaby]

well we did filibuster to, and threatened to, so we have to ride it out.

I think whats her name, kagan would good.

[Americano]

Welcome to the forum.

well we did filibuster to, and threatened to, so we have to ride it out.

Politics as usual. I was listening to my favorite bluegrass radio station (syndicated) and subjected to a news clip from whichever Republican convention with Palin as the featured speaker is happening. I had forgotten how those speeches resemble televangelist efforts. And it wasn't even Palin.
I think whats her name, kagan would good.Haven't look at the potential candidates, but will do so in the next few days.

[Americano]

I should certainly hope my party would put up a fight over Michael Steele :D

I'm still trying to determine why the GOP, with a religious right base known for discrimination, picked Steele for his current slot.

[Non Sequitur]

I'm still trying to determine why the GOP, with a religious right base known for discrimination, picked Steele for his current slot.

Because almost everyone who is not part of the religious right is trying as hard as possible to move away from them. The Bush Coalition built around the Religious right imploded in the most spectacular fashion and a lot of the people in charge know it can't work. This helps explain why the Tea Party folk and the Glenn Beck listeners are so loud at the moment. They know that the Republican leadership is trying to shut them out.

[Michael]

I'm still trying to determine why the GOP, with a religious right base known for discrimination, picked Steele for his current slot.

To counter Obama and try to create the illusion that the Republican party isn't racist.

That's why Steele was picked, plain and simple.

Apparently no one realized that he was a major jackass until it was too late. Steele's been 'failing upwards' for his whole career.

[Americano]

To counter Obama and try to create the illusion that the Republican party isn't racist.

That's why Steele was picked, plain and simple.

Agreed, but what a stupid choice.

Apparently no one realized that he was a major jackass until it was too late. Steele's been 'failing upwards' for his whole career.

I was active in the Republican party for a long time and ability had zero to do with the pecking order. Money, who owned who, money and then money was always the determining factor. That fact never changes.

[Americano]

Because almost everyone who is not part of the religious right is trying as hard as possible to move away from them. The Bush Coalition built around the Religious right imploded in the most spectacular fashion and a lot of the people in charge know it can't work. This helps explain why the Tea Party folk and the Glenn Beck listeners are so loud at the moment. They know that the Republican leadership is trying to shut them out.

Without religious right numbers the GOP can't win a national election unless the Democrats fall so flat on their faces civil disorder becomes an issue.

[Non Sequitur]

Without religious right numbers the GOP can't win a national election unless the Democrats fall so flat on their faces civil disorder becomes an issue.

I could agree with that if the current status quo of the two parties remains exactly the same forever. Fortunately, history shows that party membership, governing coalitions, and governing philosophies tend to change in response to election defeats.

[Americano]

I could agree with that if the current status quo of the two parties remains exactly the same forever. Fortunately, history shows that party membership, governing coalitions, and governing philosophies tend to change in response to election defeats.

I don't see the religious right shedding GOP dominance anytime in the near future. As US fascination for faith based religion diminishes (bible belt aside) its voting block power will continue to decline. Fortunately for politicians, the US general public has short-term recall problems and the Bush fiasco, much as with Reagan's economic blunders, will fade into a dim memory for other than extremists and those who do remember the loss of freedom.

[Americano]

GOP Leadership (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6953944.html):

"First there's national Republican Party chairman Michael Steele, who has come under criticism for his leadership. Steele says he thinks he's being held to a higher standard because he's black.

Then there's a former GOP chairman, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. He disagrees with Steele's assessment. Barbour says that's like saying, "I think I'm held to the higher standard because I'm a fat redneck with an accent like this.""


Kind of scary to realize that sort of leadership will resist any SCOTUS nomination by current administration.

[Michael]

GOP Leadership (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6953944.html):

"First there's national Republican Party chairman Michael Steele, who has come under criticism for his leadership. Steele says he thinks he's being held to a higher standard because he's black.

Then there's a former GOP chairman, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. He disagrees with Steele's assessment. Barbour says that's like saying, "I think I'm held to the higher standard because I'm a fat redneck with an accent like this.""


Kind of scary to realize that sort of leadership will resist any SCOTUS nomination by current administration.
Funny thing is, Haley Barbour (like Steele) is held to a rather low standard of behavior to begin with. That seems to be the rule with Republicans, nothing to do with black or white.

IOKIYAR rules their world.

How about that Senator Ensign sex scandal eh? That's the biggest and most egregarious sex scandal in Washington in a decade - with lots of abuse of government privileges, bribery, payoffs and hush-money - but the mass media doesn't seem to be interested.

The topic still hasn't had half as much media coverage as that Massa debacle from a couple of weeks ago - which was ultimately about innuendo and no real facts - and involved a resigned member. Senator Ensign still sits in the US Senate. But, as we all know, IOKIYAR.

(Its okay if you are Republican)

[Michael]

All that being said, the promise to filibuster Obama's nominee even before any candidate is named really does show what the Republicans truly stand for.

[Michael]

There seems to be a remarkable consensus that Obama's shortlist for the Supreme Court consists of just three people: Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, and Merrick Garland.

Indeed. I've seen this mentioned at several blogs this morning.