Souter to retire: Obama gets his first Supreme Court nom op - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 04-30-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

View: Souter Plans to Leave Supreme Court
Source: Nytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Souter Plans to Leave Supreme Court
May 1, 2009
Souter Plans to Leave Supreme Court
By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Justice David H. Souter has indicated that he plans to retire at the end of the term in June, giving President Obama his first appointment to the Supreme Court, three people informed about the decision said Thursday night.

Justice Souter, who was appointed by a Republican president, George H.?W. Bush, but became one of the most reliable members of the court's liberal wing, has grown increasingly sour on Washington and intends to return to his home state, New Hampshire, according to the people briefed on his plans. His decision was first reported by National Public Radio.

The decision opens the first seat for a Democratic president to fill in 15 years and could prove a test of Mr. Obama's plans for reshaping the nation's judiciary. Confirmation battles for the Supreme Court in recent years have proved to be intensely partisan and divisive moments in Washington, but Mr. Obama has more leeway than his predecessors because his party holds such a strong majority in the Senate.

Two friends of Justice Souter, 69,deltete in bmatter said Thursday night that he had often spoken privately of his intentions to be the court's first retirement if Mr. Obama won the election last fall. He has told friends that he looked forward to returning to his native New Hampshire while he was still able to enjoy climbing mountains and other outdoor activities.

Replacing Justice Souter with a liberal would not change the basic breakdown on the court, where he and three other justices hold down the left wing against a conservative caucus of four justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate Republican appointee, often provides the swing vote that controls important decisions.

White House officials contacted Thursday night declined to comment. But Democratic strategists have been thinking for a long time about who Mr. Obama might put on the court. Among the names that have been floated in recent months are Elena Kagan, whom Mr. Obama named as his solicitor general.

A spokeswoman for the court said Thursday night that Justice Souter, 69, "has no comment on these reports that he is planning to resign."

Justice Souter was nominated to the court by the first President George Bush and confirmed as the 105th justice on Oct. 2, 1990. He replaced Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the court's liberal leader, who abruptly retired on July 20, 1990, at age 84 after suffering a stroke.

The nominee was little known even in Washington legal circles when the president introduced him to the country. He was a 50-year-old Harvard Law School graduate and former Rhodes scholar who had been confirmed to a federal judgeship only two months earlier and had barely moved into his chambers at the federal appeals court in Boston. For 12 years before that, he had been a state judge in New Hampshire.

As the Supreme Court became more conservative and polarized in the 1990's, Justice Souter provided an important vote that helped liberals eke out some important victories, most in 5-to-4 decisions that would not have been possible had he turned out to be the justice many conservatives assumed he would at the time of his nomination.

During his confirmation hearing, Judge Souter said he had no agenda on abortion and had not made a decision on how he would vote if the issue of Roe v. Wade was put before him. A major abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, arrived at the court in his second term and was argued on April 22, 1992. It was widely expected that Roe v. Wade would be formally or functionally overturned because by then another abortion rights supporter, Justice Thurgood Marshall, had retired, and he was replaced by Justice Clarence Thomas.

But the result was just the opposite. Justice Souter, joined by two other Republican-appointed justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy, who had earlier both expressed strong doubts about Roe v. Wade, collaborated to produce a highly unusual joint opinion that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion. With Justices Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens joining the central parts of the joint opinion, the vote was 5 to 4.

Justice Souter was in the minority, and a bitter dissenter, in the case of Bush v. Gore, the 5-to-4 decision that ended the disputed Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election and effectively declared George W. Bush the winner.

Well it seems that a lat 100 day gift is dropped on President Obama's lap.

Quote:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," Obama said. "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criterion by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Who do you think he's going to pick? Do you think that the confirmation process will be as divisive and contentious as it has in the past?

I'm not sure what he's going to do. I believe that he'll pick a more center more moderate liberal, but I'm not sure who that will be that this time. I've got some reading to do.

Willravel · 04-30-2009, 08:09 PM

Wait.... could we replace a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to moderate on the whole with a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to liberal on the whole? We've got a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

Let's go find a new Warren, Brennen or Marshall!!

Plan9 · 04-30-2009, 08:21 PM

Justice Souter has been waiting a long time to retire. Tough old bastard didn't wanna give Bushy-poo any more muscle in the SC. When the Obaminator was elected, he took a deep breathe and let out a sigh that had been held for eight years. SC is totally gonna swing back to the Due Process model, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Let's go find a new Warren, Brennen or Marshall!!

Hell, can't we just reanimate them?

highthief · 05-01-2009, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Who do you think he's going to pick? Do you think that the confirmation process will be as divisive and contentious as it has in the past?

Apparently he will pick a poor, disabled, gay, African-American to fill the post.

That should be fun!

loquitur · 05-01-2009, 07:23 AM

I predict Sonia Sotomayor. We could do worse. She's a real judge.

I know she is the choice of conventional wisdom, but that's not a bad thing.

Cynthetiq · 05-01-2009, 11:03 AM

interesting loquitur...

I just was trying to find out what the past choices could have been... here's what slate listed:

Quote:

Obama's Supreme Court | Salon News

Sonia Sotomayor, 54 -- After growing up in a Bronx housing project, Sotomayor has risen to become a judge on one of the most powerful courts in the land: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. As a Hispanic woman, Sotomayor would make an attractive candidate if Obama is looking to diversify the court. There has never been a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, and there is only one woman currently on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sotomayor might also have bipartisan appeal. She is politically moderate, and President George H.W. Bush appointed her to her first judgeship.

Deval Patrick, 52 -- As the first African-American governor of Massachusetts and a friend of Barack Obama's, Patrick is often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Patrick would bring something that is in short supply on the court: executive experience. But he would also bring a major risk: He has never served in the judiciary. Despite that gap in his résumé, he has some background in the law. Before he was governor, Patrick was a lawyer and President Clinton appointed him the assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1994 -- the nation's highest civil rights position. Patrick is solidly liberal and supports a number of positions, such as same-sex marriage, that could make him a target for Republicans during the confirmation process.

Elena Kagan, 48 -- Few names have been floated as often as a potential Obama nominee as Kagan, the dean of the Harvard Law School -- Obama's alma mater. Like Obama, she also taught at the University of Chicago. Kagan served in Clinton's White House as an associate counsel and domestic policy advisor. Clinton nominated her for a position on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but Republicans stalled her approval. Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Merrick Garland, 56 -- President Clinton appointed Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997. Garland also served in the Department of Justice during the Clinton administration; as an associate deputy attorney general he oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber cases. Garland was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. This impressive résumé makes him one of the most experienced of Obama's potential nominees. Recently, Garland joined two other judges in throwing out the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" designation for a Chinese Muslim held at Guantánamo Bay. He is considered politically moderate.

Cass Sunstein, 54 -- A preeminent and prolific law scholar and an advisor to Obama's presidential campaign, Sunstein was a colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago and now teaches at Harvard Law School. Sunstein has decried the Supreme Court's more conservative justices, including Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He calls them judicial fundamentalists who have advocated "earthquake-like" changes in the law. Sunstein argues for a minimalist approach to jurisprudence. He believes justices' decisions should be narrowly tailored to the case at hand and should lean heavily on precedent. Sunstein has said minimalists believe "the Supreme Court is not our national policy maker."

Diane P. Wood, 58 -- Like Sunstein, Wood is a distinguished law academic. President Clinton nominated Wood to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 1995 after she worked in his Department of Justice. She is also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and was also a lawyer in private practice. She started her law career as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. She is considered somewhat liberal.

Jennifer Granholm, 49 -- The governor of Michigan and that state's former attorney general, Granholm has many of the strengths and weaknesses that Deval Patrick has. She would bring executive experience, but she has also never served in the judiciary. Granholm backed Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary, but she stumped for Obama during the general election and is serving on his economic transition team. She also stood in for Sarah Palin during Joe Biden's preparation for the vice-presidential debate.
Quantcast

Leah Ward Sears, 53 -- She is the first woman to serve as chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, but that is hardly Sears' only trailblazing achievement. She was the first woman and the youngest person ever to serve on the court when Gov. Zell Miller appointed her in 1992. She was also the first African-American to serve on a Georgia superior court. Sears, like Sotomayor, will present an attractive pick for Obama if he looks to increase the diversity of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sears plans to step down from the Georgia Supreme Court in June 2009. She describes herself as a moderate, but she has often been targeted by Georgia's conservatives.

Harold Hongju Koh, 53 -- The dean of Yale Law School is a Korean-American and an expert on international law and human rights. From 1998 to 2001, he served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under President Clinton. He also worked in the Department of Justice. Koh is considered a staunch liberal. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He said in an interview with the Yale newspaper that gay rights are especially important to him. Koh also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

Ruben Castillo, 54 -- A United States District Court judge in Chicago, Castillo was appointed by President Clinton in 1994. The judge is the son of a Mexican immigrant father and a Puerto Rican mother, and he was the first member of his family to graduate from college. After starting his career in private practice, Castillo became an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. During one of Castillo's prosecutions, a drug kingpin took out a contract on his life, and Castillo and his family had to be placed in police protective custody. Castillo also served as the director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

loquitur · 05-01-2009, 11:29 AM

Cyn, BHO won't pick Deval Patrick because it looks like cronyism; he and Patrick are old buddies. Koh would ignite a firestorm because of his views of international law, and the political fallout is a distraction BHO doesn't need now. Sunstein and Kagan are basically academics; they are both first-class minds and, again, we can do worse. I hadn't heard anyting about Granholm being in the running; is she really Supreme Court justice material? The others I don't really know.

I really think his best choice is Sotomayor. But hey, he isn't listening to me.

dksuddeth · 05-01-2009, 12:29 PM

I should get the nomination.

asaris · 05-03-2009, 04:04 AM

I think Kagan is likely to get /a/ nomination at some point during Obama's presidency, but I think this is too early for her to be a serious candidate. Obama is going to wait until she's had a few arguments before the court as solicitor general before he nominates her. I hope that he'll go outside the box, and pick someone with actual litigation experience. I would think it'd be hilarious if he nominated John Edwards...

timalkin · 05-03-2009, 11:28 AM

Rekna · 05-03-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

How much do you want to bet that a black person is appointed?

I hope he does appoint a black person. That will be another nail in the coffin of affirmative action.

so no black person is qualified for the supreme court? You aren't racist or anything are ya?

Seaver · 05-03-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

so no black person is qualified for the supreme court? You aren't racist or anything are ya?

Or maybe he could be saying that with all the African American people holding high office the argument that they need preferential treatment could cease.

Baraka_Guru · 05-03-2009, 03:57 PM

An instance of the entire supreme court consisting of blacks wouldn't change what's going on in the life of the average black person. I don't see the connection. There aren't that many people who sit on the supreme court overall.

I just hope he chooses someone who isn't bat-shit crazy.

Charlatan · 05-03-2009, 04:15 PM

Unfortunately, most don't appear to see the connection.

FuglyStick · 05-03-2009, 04:28 PM

Obama's choice will be fairly moderate, I imagine.

And it won't matter, the GOP will scream bloody murder no matter who he chooses.

Rekna · 05-03-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Or maybe he could be saying that with all the African American people holding high office the argument that they need preferential treatment could cease.

His statement says if a black person not if an unqualified black person. What if a black person is the most qualified?

timalkin · 05-03-2009, 04:43 PM

Rekna · 05-03-2009, 04:52 PM

saying that a black person can only become a supreme court justice via affirmative action is indeed racist.

Derwood · 05-04-2009, 06:29 AM

Nice threadjack though.

FoolThemAll · 05-04-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

saying that a black person can only become a supreme court justice via affirmative action is indeed racist.

Saying that black people uniformly love fried chicken and watermelon is also racist. But nobody said that, either.

Rekna · 05-05-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Saying that black people uniformly love fried chicken and watermelon is also racist. But nobody said that, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

I hope he does appoint a black person. That will be another nail in the coffin of affirmative action.

He is certainly implying that if a black person gets appointed it is because of affirmative action.

FoolThemAll · 05-05-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

He is certainly implying that if a black person gets appointed it is because of affirmative action.

No, he isn't. Try Seaver's #12.

sapiens · 05-05-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

No, he isn't. Try Seaver's #12.

That's what I thought he was saying (Seaver's clarification). Though I agreed with Baraka_Guru's rejoinder in #13.

Rekna · 05-05-2009, 02:50 PM

If that is what he meant then he wasn't being racist but I'd disagree that the appointment of a black man means we don't need AA anymore. But currently the only other response we have from him doesn't seem to support your interpretation.

Quote:

Affirmative action doesn't care if a black person is qualified or not, so why should we? As long as your skin color is darker than a white person's skin color, you're in.

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Current make up of the supreme court:

Male: 8
Female: 1

White: 8
Black: 1

It seems clear to me that the court needs more diversity.

KirStang · 05-05-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If that is what he meant then he wasn't being racist but I'd disagree that the appointment of a black man means we don't need AA anymore. But currently the only other response we have from him doesn't seem to support your interpretation.

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Current make up of the supreme court:

Male: 8
Female: 1

White: 8
Black: 1

It seems clear to me that the court needs more diversity.

So long as they publish well reasoned opinions and not the crap the put out in Massachusetts v. EPA.

FuglyStick · 05-05-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Current make up of the supreme court:

Male: 8
Female: 1

White: 8
Black: 1

It seems clear to me that the court needs more diversity.

Actually, according to figures from the US census, African Americans are represented fairly well on the Supreme Court as a reflection of their percentage of the population (~12%). Women, however, are woefully under-represented.

Regardless, the most qualified person should be the appointee. Things rarely work out that way, however.

FoolThemAll · 05-05-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

That's what I thought he was saying (Seaver's clarification). Though I agreed with Baraka_Guru's rejoinder in #13.

Me too. It's not a very good argument against AA, at least not on its own.

Rekna · 05-05-2009, 03:23 PM

I think when it comes to the supreme court part of the qualification process is gender/race. A court as powerful as the supreme court needs a diversity of opinions and world views. One way to get this diversity is to be both diverse in race and gender.

I do agree that percentage wise blacks are well represented but the one black judge is also a judge that a large majority of black people do not relate with nor agree with.

It is my hope that Obama appoints a minority female who is also qualified. Which minority it is not as important to me as I feel any minority would diversify the pool of opinions. The court definitely does not need any more privileged white males (disclaimer: I am a privileged white male).

FoolThemAll · 05-05-2009, 03:38 PM

That's cool and all, Rekna, but right now I'm really only interested in minority female opinions about the importance of Supreme Court diversity. Many thanks for the disclaimer.

Derwood · 05-05-2009, 04:23 PM

race/gender in no way guarantee a differing world view. If a black man and a white woman grow up next door to each other on the same street their entire lives, how different is their world view?

Charlatan · 05-05-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

race/gender in no way guarantee a differing world view. If a black man and a white woman grow up next door to each other on the same street their entire lives, how different is their world view?

It can vary from very different to just slightly different. It also depends on which country/community/economic class/etc. they are living in.

There will be differences because the culture at large views them as different, regardless of where they grew up and what circumstances.

Infinite_Loser · 05-07-2009, 10:27 PM

Who cares about diversity in the Supreme Court? Obama picking (What will most likely be) a woman to fill Souter's vacant seat just because she is a women is reverse sexism.

Baraka_Guru · 05-08-2009, 02:43 AM

It's a good thing he won't pick a woman just because she's a woman then, isn't it?

And personally, I'd rather diversity over uniformity.

Xazy · 05-08-2009, 02:47 AM

If Sonia Sotomayor, it is sad that someone will get picked probably since they are Puerto Rico, and a woman. It will sadly in my mind make some think that the pick was not fully qualified, or it may mean that there are other candidates that are more qualified.

I think the best person, even if it is a caucasion male,or whatever should get picked, but even supreme court is all about politics at least until you get the job.

Rekna · 05-08-2009, 09:10 AM

The problem is there is no single best person. In the end it comes down to there are likely lots of very good candidates to choose from that have comparable credentials. In this case I think it is best to diversify the bench. The court is not supposed to be a bunch of yes men but instead a bunch of free thinkers who debate and decide on tough issues. It is vital that such a body contain a diverse group of people to ensure that all angles are taken into consideration.

Infinite_Loser · 05-08-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It's a good thing he won't pick a woman just because she's a woman then, isn't it?

And personally, I'd rather diversity over uniformity.

Yes, he will. Who are you kidding? His entire stance so far is that SCOTUS needs to be more "diversified" and that women are "underrepresented" on the bench. It would be a shock if he didn't pick a woman.

Anywho, this isn't about "conformity". The court isn't supposed to be a bunch of "free thinkers", whatever the hell that means. They're supposed to be a panel of judges who know the law and make sure that the law is in-line with the Constitution absent their own personal biases. If Obama wants to pick a woman with extensive knowledge of the law, fine. But Obama is talking about picking persons with little to no real experience with the law and based on their race and/or gender and some people actually think that's a good idea? I mean, really?

I weep for the future.

asaris · 05-08-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

But Obama is talking about picking persons with little to no real experience with the law and based on their race and/or gender and some people actually think that's a good idea? I mean, really?

I weep for the future.

Except no one thinks this. As Rekna pointed out, every single candidate that's being considered for this position is very qualified. The issue isn't picking an unqualified woman over a qualified man -- it's picking a qualified woman rather than a qualified man. There are hundred, if not thousands, of people in the United States who are perfectly qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. So it's perfectly legitimate to pick someone based on some factors other than their pure knowledge of law, the Constitution, and precedent. Lots of people are so close on that as to be virtually indistinguishable. It's the intangibles that matter.

Charlatan · 05-08-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I weep for the future.

Wasted tears are what? The tears of a clown.

Do you really think the vetting process that a nominee has to go through is going to allow someone who isn't qualified into the Supreme Court? (that's a rhetorical question by the way -- the answer, as we all know it, is no).

dippin · 05-08-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Yes, he will. Who are you kidding? His entire stance so far is that SCOTUS needs to be more "diversified" and that women are "underrepresented" on the bench. It would be a shock if he didn't pick a woman.

Anywho, this isn't about "conformity". The court isn't supposed to be a bunch of "free thinkers", whatever the hell that means. They're supposed to be a panel of judges who know the law and make sure that the law is in-line with the Constitution absent their own personal biases. If Obama wants to pick a woman with extensive knowledge of the law, fine. But Obama is talking about picking persons with little to no real experience with the law and based on their race and/or gender and some people actually think that's a good idea? I mean, really?

I weep for the future.

Can you name a single example of a person that Obama has talked about that has little to no real experience?

The thing that is frustrating sometimes around here is that so often we have to spend so much time setting the record straight, that we don't get to discuss the real issue.

Of all the names being floated around, there is not a single "Harriet Miers" in the bunch.

Infinite_Loser · 05-09-2009, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Except no one thinks this. As Rekna pointed out, every single candidate that's being considered for this position is very qualified. The issue isn't picking an unqualified woman over a qualified man -- it's picking a qualified woman rather than a qualified man. There are hundred, if not thousands, of people in the United States who are perfectly qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. So it's perfectly legitimate to pick someone based on some factors other than their pure knowledge of law, the Constitution, and precedent. Lots of people are so close on that as to be virtually indistinguishable. It's the intangibles that matter.

Extremes such as "no one" and "every(one)" are rarely, if ever, true. Indeed, many times they're not and I'd be wary of those persons who use them.

But, beyond that, no matter what way you try to slice it, gender and race are not "intangibles". They never have been and they never will be. It's utterly ridiculous to assert as much. Do you know what it's called when you make gender and race the deciding factors? Discrimination (In this case, it would be reverse discrimination), plain and simple. See, if a man were ever to be picked over a woman on the basis that he's a man, the person decided would be labeled sexist. Conversely, if a person who was white was picked over a minority on the basis that he's white, the person who decided would be labeled a racist. And if those two cases aren't cool, then neither is the reverse. And, unfortunately for some of you guys and gals, Obama has already come out and stated that certain groups are "underrepresented" on the bench and pretty much everyone and their grandparents know Obama is more than likely going to appoint a woman because of it. It's funny how in the midst of cries for equality you get demographic qualifiers like race, gender, orientation, etc. being thrown out under the guise of "intangibles".

There's a stark difference between choosing a woman or whomever because she's the best for the job, and choosing a woman because she is, in essence, not a man. But I suppose people will go to any lengths to defend Obama, even if it doesn't make much sense at all and would be denounced if the situations reversed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wasted tears are what? The tears of a clown.

Do you really think the vetting process that a nominee has to go though is going to allow someone who isn't qualified into the Supreme Court? (that's a rhetorical question by the way -- the answer, as we all know it, is no).

And in a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world, do we? Political ideology is the game in Washington. Qualifications aren't nearly as important as electing/apointing someone with the similar views to your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Can you name a single example of a person that Obama has talked about that has little to no real experience?

The thing that is frustrating sometimes around here is that so often we have to spend so much time setting the record straight, that we don't get to discuss the real issue.

Of all the names being floated around, there is not a single "Harriet Miers" in the bunch.

Since Obama himself has been hush-hush about it, no. I'll admit that my last post was written a little hastily, since Obama himself hasn't said much of anything about his appointee(s). I will say, however, that there has been a lot of clamor to appoint a non-judge/lawyer/something like a governor to the Supreme Court, which is just stupid.

...Plus, I have absolutely zero faith in any pick Obama makes, anyway, as he's a poor judge of character/ability.

05-01-2009, 12:29 PM	#8 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I should get the nomination. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-03-2009, 04:04 AM	#9 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I think Kagan is likely to get /a/ nomination at some point during Obama's presidency, but I think this is too early for her to be a serious candidate. Obama is going to wait until she's had a few arguments before the court as solicitor general before he nominates her. I hope that he'll go outside the box, and pick someone with actual litigation experience. I would think it'd be hilarious if he nominated John Edwards... __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

05-03-2009, 11:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:21 PM..

05-03-2009, 03:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	An instance of the entire supreme court consisting of blacks wouldn't change what's going on in the life of the average black person. I don't see the connection. There aren't that many people who sit on the supreme court overall. I just hope he chooses someone who isn't bat-shit crazy. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-03-2009, 04:15 PM	#14 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Unfortunately, most don't appear to see the connection. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-30-2009, 08:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Wait.... could we replace a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to moderate on the whole with a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to liberal on the whole? We've got a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. Let's go find a new Warren, Brennen or Marshall!!

05-01-2009, 07:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I predict Sonia Sotomayor. We could do worse. She's a real judge. I know she is the choice of conventional wisdom, but that's not a bad thing.

05-01-2009, 11:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Cyn, BHO won't pick Deval Patrick because it looks like cronyism; he and Patrick are old buddies. Koh would ignite a firestorm because of his views of international law, and the political fallout is a distraction BHO doesn't need now. Sunstein and Kagan are basically academics; they are both first-class minds and, again, we can do worse. I hadn't heard anyting about Granholm being in the running; is she really Supreme Court justice material? The others I don't really know. I really think his best choice is Sotomayor. But hey, he isn't listening to me.

05-03-2009, 04:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Obama's choice will be fairly moderate, I imagine. And it won't matter, the GOP will scream bloody murder no matter who he chooses. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

05-03-2009, 04:43 PM	#17 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:20 PM..

05-03-2009, 04:52 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	saying that a black person can only become a supreme court justice via affirmative action is indeed racist.

05-04-2009, 06:29 AM	#19 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Nice threadjack though.

05-05-2009, 03:23 PM	#28 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think when it comes to the supreme court part of the qualification process is gender/race. A court as powerful as the supreme court needs a diversity of opinions and world views. One way to get this diversity is to be both diverse in race and gender. I do agree that percentage wise blacks are well represented but the one black judge is also a judge that a large majority of black people do not relate with nor agree with. It is my hope that Obama appoints a minority female who is also qualified. Which minority it is not as important to me as I feel any minority would diversify the pool of opinions. The court definitely does not need any more privileged white males (disclaimer: I am a privileged white male).

05-05-2009, 03:38 PM	#29 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	That's cool and all, Rekna, but right now I'm really only interested in minority female opinions about the importance of Supreme Court diversity. Many thanks for the disclaimer. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

05-05-2009, 04:23 PM	#30 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	race/gender in no way guarantee a differing world view. If a black man and a white woman grow up next door to each other on the same street their entire lives, how different is their world view?

05-07-2009, 10:27 PM	#32 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Who cares about diversity in the Supreme Court? Obama picking (What will most likely be) a woman to fill Souter's vacant seat just because she is a women is reverse sexism. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

05-08-2009, 02:43 AM	#33 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's a good thing he won't pick a woman just because she's a woman then, isn't it? And personally, I'd rather diversity over uniformity. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-08-2009, 02:47 AM	#34 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	If Sonia Sotomayor, it is sad that someone will get picked probably since they are Puerto Rico, and a woman. It will sadly in my mind make some think that the pick was not fully qualified, or it may mean that there are other candidates that are more qualified. I think the best person, even if it is a caucasion male,or whatever should get picked, but even supreme court is all about politics at least until you get the job.

05-08-2009, 09:10 AM	#35 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The problem is there is no single best person. In the end it comes down to there are likely lots of very good candidates to choose from that have comparable credentials. In this case I think it is best to diversify the bench. The court is not supposed to be a bunch of yes men but instead a bunch of free thinkers who debate and decide on tough issues. It is vital that such a body contain a diverse group of people to ensure that all angles are taken into consideration.