David Souter retiring

[idlewind]

How about this: a Democrat Prez appoints a Democrat who is really a Conservative Republican in place of a liberal "Republican" who was appointed by a Republican. Wait, I am REALLY dreaming. Only Republican Presidents are required to appoint "center" candidates to the Court. Democrats can appoint as liberal a person as they can find.

As to "balancing" the Court, who will balance Ginsberg and Co?

 

[TooFarTampa]

It is funny that there are already a number of GOPers publicly hyperventilating over this -- before he even makes a pick!

Meantime, I really enjoyed this story in the NYT, because it gives a peek into what Professor Obama has thought of the court over the years, and why he may be likely to pick someone more moderate or at least pragmatic. The "empathy" comment is explained as Obama's desire to get someone who not just looks at the law itself, but takes into account how a ruling or a change in the interpretation of the law will play out in reality. This is what makes Obama so compelling IMO. He looks at things from both a holistic standpoint and frets about the details and envisions the dominos falling down the line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/politics/03obama.html?_r=1&hp

Another story in the same vein from Bloomberg, not quite as nuanced but interesting:

Obama May Seek Out Centrist to Replace Souter on Supreme Court

 

[30ashopper]

I wouldn't characterize concern over his picks as 'hyperventilating', I am just very concerned. SCOTUS nominations are the most lasting legacy of any president as they shape legal decisions for decades. I see Obama as a liberal, and guess that he is a fan of activist courts. A non-ideologue pragmatist? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[TooFarTampa]

I wouldn't characterize concern over his picks as 'hyperventilating', I am just very concerned. SCOTUS nominations are the most lasting legacy of any president as they shape legal decisions for decades. I see Obama as a liberal, and guess that he is a fan of activist courts. A non-ideologue pragmatist? I'll believe it when I see it.

I wasn't talking about you; I meant some of 'em on the shows this morning.

When you say "you guess that he is a fan of activist courts," it tells me that you haven't read either piece. He has a fine and complex mind. He may know more about the Constitution than any president in (edit)modern(edit) history! At the minimum I would guess his pick will be interesting, and possibly unexpected.

 

[30ashopper]

I wasn't talking about you; I meant some of 'em on the shows this morning.

When you say "you guess that he is a fan of activist courts," it tells me that you haven't read either piece. He has a fine and complex mind. He may know more about the Constitution than any president in (edit)modern(edit) history! At the minimum I would guess his pick will be interesting, and possibly unexpected.

I read them both but I pretty much take everything in the NYT and Bloomberg related to Obama with a pound of salt.

 

[goofer]

History has proven many times that who a president has nominated for the supreme court is not necessarily the kind of justice the president thought he would get. Justice Kennedy is the key to the balance of the court. The Souter replacement will not change the tenor of the court.

 

[Lynnie]

History has proven many times that who a president has nominated for the supreme court is not necessarily the kind of justice the president thought he would get. Justice Kennedy is the key to the balance of the court. The Souter replacement will not change the tenor of the court.

I would need to look at the history of this a little more closely, but I tend to agree with you. I don't think that Souter's replacement will gravely upset the current balance. We'll see in October, however!

 

[6thGen]

not a modern republican

He was at his confirmation hearings, or at least he portrayed himself as an originalist. If Kennedy and the dems hadn't disgracefully treated Bork as they did, the American public would at least have the democratic process solve what the Constitution didn't specifically address. Yes, Souter voted on the right to an abortion, school prayer, gay rights, etc. That's the social liberal trying to make the case that he's for less government intervention. However, he also voted with the liberal wing against school vouchers, the death penalty, and to weaken national security law. He's voted with the liberal wing on federalism, term limits, affirmative action, racial gerrymandering, and church-state relations. Conservatives who describe themselves as social liberals believe that less is more. They believe in less government intervention to force socially conservative results, but they don't believe in a ham fisted federal government forcing the liberalization of social policies. Souter was a solid liberal. Your article mentions his respect for precendent, but that was only when precedent yielded liberal policy results. The only thing that differs him from the Warren Court is his lack of heavy handedness.

Also, progmatism isn't a good thing when you are a judge. To paraphrase Roberts, your job is to call balls and strikes, not offer an assist to your philosophical brethren.

 

[Mango]

Also, progmatism isn't a good thing when you are a judge. To paraphrase Roberts, your job is to call balls and strikes, not offer an assist to your philosophical brethren.

A major league ref can view a play in slow motion if not sure of the call. I would call that a pragmatic approach since pragmatism holds that truth is to be found in the process of verification.

 

[6thGen]

A major league ref can view a play in slow motion if not sure of the call. I would call that a pragmatic approach since pragmatism holds that truth is to be found in the process of verification.

I've said before that pragmatism is often used as a Trojan Horse for socialism since you start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it. Pragmatism is also responsible for such great things such as forced sterilization of "feeble-minded" women, as "three generations of imbeciles are enough" (OWH). I've also argued many times here the evils of moral relativism and that civilized society needs to have things that are always true.