Breaking: Justice Stevens will retire under Obama, to decide in "about a month"

[usregimechange]

In a New Yorker interview set for publication tomorrow, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said, "I still have my options open" about whether to retire from the Court at the end of this term. Stevens told writer Jeffrey Toobin that he would decide on his plans in about a month.

Ever since Stevens confirmed to the press last fall that he had hired only one law clerk for the 2010-2011 term, it has become conventional wisdom that Stevens, who turns 90 next month, would be retiring soon. (Retired justices are allowed one law clerk, while sitting justices can hire four.) Stevens' new comments to the New Yorker seem to hedge that prediction somewhat. Toobin quoted Stevens as saying, "You can say I will retire within the next three years. I'm sure of that."

On his one-clerk clue about retirement, Stevens told Toobin, "When I decided to hire just one clerk, three of my four law clerks last year said they would work for me next year if I wanted them to. So I have my options still." In other words, if Stevens decides he wants to stay on another term, he could easily remedy his clerk deficit.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/justice-stevens-keeping-options-open-on-retirement.html


Two possible replacements:

Kagan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7914575

Liu
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7912313


But, if he does retire, we will need to honor him as well as looking to who might replace him.

[usregimechange]

1. Court turn right? "There's no doubt. You don't have to ask me that. Look at Citizens United."

[usregimechange]

2. "You can say I will retire within the next three years. I'm sure of that."

Obama will get to name another Justice!

[rampart]

10. only 1 repub can "hold" confirmation of obama's choice

until 2013, or 2017 if necessary.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Then a nuclear option will be invoked

and all filibusters attempts will be denied.

We gave them Alito and Roberts. Thugs should force Scalia to retire (or die ASAP) and give one back to us after bad decisions by the Roberts court.

Also kick Roberts out of his Chief Justice role, and watch how quickly he decides to "retire" due to "family reasons".

Thomas should be impeached and removed and replaced with a Thurgood Marshall justice.

[usregimechange]

20. those can be broken if necessary

[adamuu]

47. not if he waits a full year, when Senate has opportunity to adjust rules. n/t

[Toots]

48. I will bet anyone almost anything the one Obama chooses will not be a Liberal..

We lose a Liberal to be replaced by a Moderate conservative...

[beyurslf]

3. We need him and Ginsburg to retire so Obama can replace them both.

I keep hoping one day I wake up and find that Thomas is stepping down.

[usregimechange]

4. God that would be sooooo nice

[beyurslf]

7. Or if Thomas and Scalia got into a duel and shot each other?

Oh for the old times again. They are all about how the Founders did things. Maybe we should remind them.

[malaise]

21. or if Roberts had a major fit

:shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Maybe they'll go duck hunting with Cheney.

A twofer is possible

[HughMoran]

30. That would be so fabulous

Can you imagine if those two trolls offed each other? The joy!

[eppur_se_muova]

42. A twofer? I'd bet it's more likely one of them will end like this:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba2.html

[blue_onyx]

9. If they both want to retire....

if would be great if they did it this year. More than likely, the Dems will lose senators after the 2010 elections. This will make it more difficult to get approval for nominees in the remaining 2 years of Obama's first term.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. With who?

Do we have any reason to believe he will appoint a good liberal?

[usregimechange]

56. Other than that he is a smart guy and knows what not doing so would mean?

Not that this logic is compelling in other areas.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. A smart guy with corporate masters

If he had a record of promoting AND implementing liberal policies I'd be more hopeful.

[usregimechange]

62. Am I wrong in believing that he will come through in the end?

That when we look back on this it will have been worth doing?

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I hope you're correct

[Ian David]

5. The sexual harassment he gets from Clarence Thomas might be the deciding factor. n/t

[usregimechange]

28. By now he might enjoy it more than his activism

[usregimechange]

6. "very unhappy with" D.C. v. Heller and Bush v. Gore in 2000.

[terrell9584]

13. Bush v. Gore was a bad decision

DC vs Heller was one of the few good decisions this court has made. If they had ruled for DC in that case it would have basically made the 2nd amendment inoperable and would have set us on the road that Britain has trod down.

There are many things you can say about Britain but the one thing you can't say is that it is a free country. And like it or not whether or not a country allows civilians to possess firearms is a major signal of the personal freedom within that country.

[Unvanguard]

38. Leaving the direct legal question aside, as a policy matter Heller was bad.

Not because gun control is or isn't a good thing, but simply because it is not an issue that is best dealt with by the courts. It's mistaken to think of it as an "individual rights" issue: the most compelling case for gun rights is self-defense, but in that case gun control policies stand or fall on whether or not they actually do make people more secure, and there's no reason to believe that the courts are in a better position than legislators to make that judgment. It's not a question of principle, but of cost-benefit policymaking.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Heller v. D.C. and soon McDonald v. Chicago.

:party: :toast: :party: :toast: :party: :toast: :party: :toast: :party: :toast: :party: :toast:

[usregimechange]

8. updated title

[Faygo Kid]

11. Thank you Gerald Ford for that appointment.

Remember when Republicans were decent human beings, even when we disagreed with them?

Long time ago, indeed.

[usregimechange]

19. No memory of that

[Zomby Woof]

33. Fuck Ford

He gave us Donald Rumsfeld (his first WH Chief of Staff, and then his Defense Secretary), and Dick Cheney (his successor to Rumsfeld as WH Chief of Staff).

Never let your guard down with Republicans. Decent human beings, my ass.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. You want to diss Ford for his Chief of Staff?

Given the current occupant of that office, did Ford do any worse?

[usregimechange]

50. Um, yes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Probably the one thing Ford got right.

Certainly the best Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice in my lifetime.

[usregimechange]

36. Got to give him credit for that

[marshall]

12. I think Stevens will wait until after the November elections to decide

If November's results portend trouble for Obama in 2012, Stevens will have to "get out while the getting is good" so that Obama will have as much of the remainder of his first (and in such a scenario, perhaps only) term in which to fight for a suitable replacement. Under such circumstances his retirement cannot be delayed much beyond the first of the year without jeopardizing the Obama's chances to replace him with a like minded jurist.

[FBaggins]

18. I doubt it. If there's "trouble" in November it will be too late.

It would be almost impossible to nominate a replacement and have hearing and a vote before the new Senate was in place.

If Republicans pick up a significant number of seats, they would be able to block anyone but a "moderate" (which moves the court significantly to the right)- if they actually take back the Senate, they wouldn't even need to filibuster... they would just vote "no"


Nope... the only option that keeps the status reasonably quo is for Stevens AND Ginsburg to retire this summer while they can still be replaced with solid justices.

This, of course, assumes that November will be "trouble" - play the cards right on judicial picks and fight well for them, and that could help in November.

[marshall]

22. But anything so close to an election brings in other issues

Mostly of self preservation, especially after the loss of "Kennedy's seat". The best time to get a vote on such matters in the midst of controversy over ideology is right after an election, when the members of Congress has the most amount of time to smooth over ruffled feathers before the next go round.

So I guess any scenario has its risks.

[FBaggins]

31. Bringing in "other issues" is what we WANT.

When the current mix of coverage/issues/whatever looks like it's going to cost us several seats (and possibly control), changing the playing field is a GOOD idea.

A fair number of voters picked Obama because of the USSC and who Republicans would pick to replace three liberal bastions who would likely retire/die during the next administration. Why not remind them of this?

[usregimechange]

24. I agree now would be best

[Hippo_Tron]

39. As long as we're 51 we're fine, just keep nominating hispanics and women

Two demographics the Republicans are too worried about to block.

[FBaggins]

46. There is no guarantee that we'll have 51 after November.

There also isn't a surplus of hispanic women qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Either hispanics or women are fine

And the odds are good that we will still have at least 51. It looks like Toomey isn't going to be as competitive against Specter as people thought.

[FBaggins]

68. Neither poll shows Specter as safe

He still can't get to 50% even in a favorable poll.

He is most certainly not out of hot water - particularly with a primary opponent who will hurt him from the left.

The odds DO still favor at least 51 seats (though it really has to be 52 to avoid the obvious defection)... but they aren't strong enough odds to risk waiting until after the election to retire.



Also - picking a female and/or hispanic is not necessarily a safe pick if republicans can vote against her on other grounds. It would be hard to paint such a vote as anti-hispanic when Sotomayor got through without much trouble.

[Warpy]

15. While it's sad to see someone who defended our rights

so strongly retire, he's had a long term on the bench and he deserves his rest.

This has been a foregone conclusion as he hired few staff members this year.

Go with my heartfelt thanks, Justice Stevens.

[usregimechange]

16. +1

[yurbud]

17. my choice for a replacement: Vincent Bugliosi

It would be tough for the cons to oppose the guy who put Charles Manson in prison for life even though he wasn't at the scene of the crime.

[usregimechange]

27. What is his age?

[Hekate]

34. Well into his 80's is my recollection.

[Tx4obama]

45. Justice Stevens born April 20, 1920. So he'll be 90 next month n/t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[usregimechange]

26. In month means that we will have it done before Nov, assuming he chooses to retire

[usregimechange]

29. Justice Thomas' wife having a tea party seems to have generated more buzz here

:shrug:

[David Zephyr]

37. I love this man!

He has stood in the gap for Americans with no voice.

President Obama will appoint a good Justice.

[Dappleganger]

40. He's probably sick of facing those RW activist scums on the bench.

God knows it would make me want to retire.

[usregimechange]

41. I think he loves it but knows he can't be there much longer

[TexasObserver]

43. If he's watching the political scene, he'll step down in the next 3 months.

And give the president the opportunity to replace him before the fall elections.

[usregimechange]

44. I would be suprised if he didn't

[NewJeffCT]

51. While Liu & Kagan are excellent choices

I think Liu would be too young and only recently made a federal judge, and Kagan would make RW heads explode... and they'd be willing to filibuster her forever, if necessary.

[usregimechange]

53. Has their ever been a SCOTUS filibuster?

[Hawaii Hiker]

57. I don't think so - There was controversy when LBJ tried to promote Abe Fortas

to the Chief Justice, but i don't think he was filibustered...

Even radical Robert Bork got his up/down vote....The right often bitches about Arlen Specter not voting for him, but SIX Republicans (including the recently retired John Warner) voted against Bork in the final vote..

[usregimechange]

58. back when their were moderate Republicans

[Hawaii Hiker]

63. Yeah, moderate Republicans (esp. in the senate) are a thing of the past. Now,

every Democratic nominee (to any court) gets delayed & delayed..I think the GOP is still mad about Bork getting shut down, which he deserved to be, he was a nut-case & left the paper trail to prove it...

I look at this link every day to see if any progress is being made on President Obama's nominations & it's S-L-O-W going, :banghead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

[Hawaii Hiker]

52. I'm hoping for Goodwin Liu for the next SCOTUS nominee

He is young, & could be on the court for 30+ years...

Sure, the GOP will bitch, but "F" them....Clarence Thomas was only 42 when he was confirmed, Liu is only 3 years younger, and far more qualified than Thomas was..

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=4360

[usregimechange]

54. I have been impressed with him as well...

[NewJeffCT]

60. It was okay for ClarenceThomas, though

Since he's a Republican, that alone is worth a decade and an Ivy League law degree. :sarcasm:

[Motown_Johnny]

61. it is to bad this has to happen in an election year.

Either it will fire up the Conservatives because the court will be presented as "moving left" or it will demoralize Liberals because the court will not be seen as "moving left" far enough.

Most likely both.


Although I loved his first pick. It wasn't in an election year.

[usregimechange]

66. On the other hand, we may have more votes in the Senate now

[piratefish08]

65. will they replace him with an exec from AIG?

it would be the logical progression...........