Associate Justice David Souter, 69, has announced that he will retire from the Court after 18 years. The announcement comes as a complete surprise because, at 69, Souter is one of the younger members of the Court and was not expected to retire before John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He is twenty years younger than Stevens, who appears intent on remaining on the Court at least for the rest of this term.
Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. He was part of a pattern of nominees selected in part due to his low profile and uncontroversial history. Like Sandra Day O’Connor, there was little for democrats to attack in Souter’s history. He had a powerful supporter in John Sununu, Bush’s chief of staff. Yet, he proved far more liberal than anyone in the GOP imagined — becoming a lightening rod for the right who would later insist on ideological purity and almost robotic loyalty in the selection of Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito.
This will now be the first (but probably not the last) nominee for Barack Obama. The nominee sweepstakes will now begin. One interesting prospect would be Diane Wood, who serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and taught at the University of Chicago when Obama was on the faculty. Wood would be a nod to Obama’s Chicago roots and would add a second woman to the Court. She would also present a relatively easy confirmation.
Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit would be more controversial. She has a reputation for being something of an overbearing and at times hostile judge — the complete opposite of Justice Souter. She has many critics on and off the court.
I personally like Wood, but I would prefer Harold Koh, the former Dean at Yale Law School who would be the first Asian-American on the Court. He is one of the most brilliant academics in America. He would be more controversial and has already been targeted in his current confirmation hearings for a position in the Administration. However, he would be a prize worth fighting for.
Cass Sunstein has also been suggested. However, civil libertarians would view his nomination as another disappointment and would likely oppose him. He was one of the earliest voices against an prosecution for war crimes and is viewed as favorable (or at least not particularly opposed) to some of the Bush policies on surveillance and other controversial national security programs.
The loss of Souter will be felt by Court watchers. I was once asked who I would keep on the Court if I had my druthers. I mentioned Souter because he was one of the few members who did not believe that he was anointed rather than appointed to the Court. Souter is a remarkably self-effacing and gentle person. He is universally liked by the other justices and Court staff. I particularly appreciated that, unlike some of his colleagues, Souter never sought public acclaim or attention. He worked very hard at getting decisions right. While he was more liberal than many Republicans wanted, he was not as predictable as some on the Court. He remained more of a jurist than a purist in his decision; trying to resolve issues without ideological flourishes or grandstanding.
I am not surprised about this retirement in one sense. Souter always maintained his personality and persona separate from the Court. He is an intensely private man. I always viewed him as the quintessential hardy East Coast Yankee stock: quiet, strong, and principled. While his departure will not result in a great shift on the Court or the loss of a dominant voice, his departure will remove someone who bought great civility and dignity to the Court. His was a reassuring voice at a time of shrill ideology and controversy. He will be remembered well for his time on the Court and is a towering example of how the first George Bush (who regretted his selection) inadvertently made the right decision for the wrong reason.
There is a very funny story about how Souter and Justice Breyer were routinely confused for one another. It was…a running joke at the Court that outsiders frequently mistook Souter and Breyer for each other. On one trip back to New Hampshire, a couple went up to Souter at a roadside dinner and mistook him for Breyer. Souter went along rather than embarrass them and correct. He was then asked, “Justice Breyer, what’s the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?” He reportedly thought deeply and responded, “Well, I’d have to say it’s the privilege of serving with David Souter.”
I would have to agree.
Decent men who shun the limelight once appointed to high positions are rare indeed. Even more so those who quietly and competently do the work. The antithesis of Churchill’s remark, he is a humble man with little to be humble about. I wish him well in his retirement.
Well, who among the attorneys here could fathom the thought of serving on the court with some of the current justices? My guess is that Justice Souter, given his temperament, simply burnt out from serving with lesser jurists.
Professor Turley, do you meet the qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice?
You gave two figures for Souter’s age. The first one (~70) is correct and not 89.
Justice Souter is 69 and was a disappointment to the Republicans as he was a George W H Bush Appointment. He was a social liberal a true Yankee Republican in the sense of the word. The likes of him will be gravely missed. The Presidents have found that when they make this appointment they rarely have control over the out come. To me he was in the likes of Brennan and Marshall although for different reasons.
It was found the longer he was on the bench the more socially liberal he became. It will be the 1st Obama appointment and hopefully he selects well.
I hear people say why does not Obama bring charges against Bush et al. This is one of the reasons, say that he did bring charges, where would the charges ultimately end up? In the US Sct where the Bush Appointees are more numerous than the non Bush. Do you think Obama really wants to be show what a “dog and pony” show is all about? If memory serves me correctly, 2 more will retire within the next 2 years because of age and health.
As the song goes “Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is, yes it is”
I normally don’t like to make polarizing statements, but this article only serves to remind me that we are stuck with Alito and Roberts for the next thirty years or so…
A.Y.,
We are back to Obama’s secret plan with your statment. While Obama is working on his secret plan(s) we are left with real consequences of a failure to appoint an independent prosecutor. Let me explain one real consequence. Jeremy Scahill writes about the carryover of torture into Iraqi prisons. Following is an small excerpt:
**MUST READ: New UN Report Shows the US Combo of Torture and Impunity Thrives in Iraqi Prisons: Iraqi authorities widely use torture to interrogate prisoners and extract confessions without fear of consequence. Sadly, the US doesn’t have the credibility to confront these crimes.”
We tend to look at US domestic politics and forget the rest of the world. This comes from being a superpower, but these are real issues that must be addressed. This is a point JT also made on Tweety’s show yesterday. We look untrustworthy to the rest of the world. These are the kinds of things that bring about “blowback”. (find both stories at Rebel Reports)
Now onto domestic political reality. Also from Jeremy Scahill yesterday:
“Mass Arrests at White House: More than 60 people were arrested at the White House in an anti-torture protest on President Obama’s 100th day in office.” This was a completely peaceful protest. If it is Obama’s secret plan to get the population behind him in bring torturers to justice, arresting people for protesting torture, who used no violence whatsoever, seems like an odd way to further that plan.
My prediction on the SC nominee is that s/he will favor executive power.
Matthew
Certainly you’re right. Just as certainly, this was a significant part of the calculus when Bush appointed those two relatively young men to the court. The four oldest Justices are all pretty reliable liberal votes and would theoretically make up the next four appointments based solely on age. The four younger members, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, are reliable conservatives. Justice Kennedy is both relatively young/old and relatively liberal/conservative. It appears President Obama will need five picks to turn the court decisely to the left.
Jill,
Mame, I do not know how to answer you. You have your ism’s I have mine. Do you remember how long it took to get to the bottom of some of the civil rights violations?
Do you recall in 2001, that Thomas E. Blanton Jr. was the second ex-Ku Klux Klansman that was convicted in the 1963 bombing of a church in Birmingham, Ala., It claimed the lives of four black girls. I believe that he was sentenced to life in prison.
A.Y.,
There is no bearing on the cases you site and my arguments about 1. the international effects of our failure to follow our clear law/ treaty obligations and 2. the fact that domestic actions do not support the many claims of Obama’s secret plans. In fact the action of arresting peaceful protestors outside the WH for protesting againist torture, is an complete contradiction of the secret plan that Obama wishes to get the public support before he will proceed. The argument you are advancing is called a Red Herring, or on South Park, the Chewbacca defense!
First,
What mespo said.
Second,
Jill and AY, you are both right in theory, but I submit that the proof is in the eating of the pudding and this one’s still in the oven. Jill, I do not think what AY is saying is a red herring, but a viable observation based upon historical evidence. Yes, we need to move quickly, but sometimes fast is not an option. Should we as a people be patient and wait 20 years for the torturers to be held accountable? Absolutely not as this issue so fundamentally impacts the Constitution that failure to resolve it results in the total discrediting of ALL of our legal system. But AY is perfectly correct in implying that there is a time element to bringing justice to fruition.
Jill,
And for that I will respect your belief. I do not wish for you to change your belief. This you are entitled to this.
If you have ever played chess, you always have to think of the next move and do a strategical analysis of what your opponent is likely to do.
FYI, Do you know that it was not a crime to protest and smoke weed at the same time at the Washington Mall until the 1970?
Yes it was legal to do both as no laws banned either. It was not until someone in the Nixon Administration figured out that Hippies Protested and Smoked them funny Cigarettes, so to cut down on problems, they outlawed both.
Buddha,
I’m not arguing that there is a time element involved. I’m saying that there are disastrous consequences of waiting (and I pointed ouit some of those in my first post on this thread) As yet, no one will address the bad consequences that JT pointed out, of waiting. I’m also pointing to evidence that it is not so much a time element that is keeping us from proceeding, rather it is that neither the President nor Holder wishes to proceed and that is why they are not proceeding. They have both as much as said so on several occasions–looking forward, giving blanket amnesty before a full investigation, etc. Why do we keep doubting their word, which matches their lack of action and instead keep divining secret plans that match neither words of deed?
Can I propose Bybee as nominee? No? Oh, well then.
Hans,
You may, But I will not, will not support your candidate. As a matter of fact. I know with District Court and Court of Appeals it has become common place “Hold Up” the nomination if a Senator objects to the nomination being submitted to the Floor.
Believe this or not, even while the GOP held the Majority, Stabenaw was able to stop a COA from getting his vote on the Senate floor.
It was not until the Dems regained control that she ultimately withdrew here objection.
I do not know who has the ability to object to confirmation once it passes the Committee of the Judiciary. I would suspect that when, not if, Specter is confirmed as the Chair, this is gonna create some unusual issues.
But this is just my guess.
JILL – STOP! Please!
Just STOP!!!
As apt as AY’s chess analogy might be, otherwise, it is the ‘previous administrations Texas Rambler-Gambler Poker ‘know when ‘Hold ‘em’ know when to Fold’ ‘em approach to governing with which we are left to deal.
There are many things that need to change and/or be re-instituted- by LAW and BY Congress to get back to where we were.
And NONE of it is going to happen overnight or within 90 days of a new administration. So, forget about it!
One way, besides legislation, to accomplish what all of us would like to see, is by positioning the arguments toward the ‘right’ cases with full weight of the evidence being heard before what, ideally should be, an unbiased Court in order to set the precedent that we would like to see.
None of it is an easy task , and , in many respects, nor should it be.
Obama doesn’t have the luxury of having everything in place the way he would prefer coming in, as I have noted, repeatedly, on previous occasions. He has to deal with things as hey are.
This is why I can’t STAND your posts, Jill.
You are not only incredibly naive you are totally ‘unrefined’ when it comes to the Law, in particular, and completely ‘unsavy’ when it comes to Politics, in general.
We ‘turlees’ started out as a delightful and entertaining intellectual salon with daily commentary on Constitutional Law
and holding the previous administration accountable for violations to Federal and Internaatinal Law.
SOMEHOW, Jill, you’ve managed to turn it into something less than our beginnings and particularly since ‘deeply worried’s’ departure due to his fatal disease. And I resent you for it in addition to my other open and legitimate complaints as to your daily behavior.
You DROVE DW away, during his final days here, with your ‘loose lips’ and your uninformed ‘take’ on his illness and I will never forgive you for that.
HIS news belonged to HIM, only!
You had NO right to speak about it, as misinformed and uneducated as you are in medicine, in his absence. You never knew him, much less appreciated him for who he was.
You can go screw yourself, Jill.
Furthermore, stay the ‘frick’ away from me, mespo, AND JT!
Thanks,
Patty C
a/k/a ‘Etta Place’
played by the beautiful, Katherine Ross.
p.s. I look very much like Katherine Ross ie, Etta Place, but more importantly I live like her on my farm – and in the movie ;P
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/04/holy-hell-has-broken-loose-controversial-obama-intelligence-official-blocks-efforts-to-release-torture-memos/
Justice Souter is a good man and I trust that he will reconsider.
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/atl_poll_who_should_replace_sc.php
Above the Law Blog
ATL Poll: Who Should Replace SCOTUS Justice David Souter?
Former Federal LEO
ATL Poll: Who Should Replace SCOTUS Justice David Souter?
************************************************
Don’t tell anyone, this is a closely held secret. NO BODY ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has to be a licensed Attorney. So Former Fed LEO, you could have your name submitted.
This is a closely guarded secret, you ask why? I did hear you ask did you not? Nothing in the Constitution requires it. Period.
So Justice Leo, how does that sound?
AnonY:
Yes,I did ask the qualifications questions. Are for sure and for certain?
From Wiki:
“Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court.”
So Former Fed LEO,
Did you think that I would misrepresent a fact such as this? Tisck,tisck, tisck.
Well AnonY, this *is* the wild ‘n wooly Internet, your pseudonym is *Anonymously* Yours, and for all I know you *might* be Dick Cheney in disguise. Okay, that was way too low a blow, make that Karl R.
Thanks for the information. Of course, we all know that sitting judges on courts of appeals have the best opportunity, right?
Well Former Fed LEO,
I am Dick in Drag, I learned it from my friend J Edgar, we used to trade looks all the time. But in DC I can’t be DC. But I am DC. So you see I have to dress up in Drag do you see.
AnonY,
Yes, now finally IC.
Patty C.
Your comments at 1:17pm were probably not what Professor Turley had in mind when he requested that you stop attacking Jill.
They really are distasteful and unwarranted. As I recall Jill stated that she has gotten in the habit of not reading any of your posts as they were painful to her; and yet you continue to attempt to get her engage with you, although she is wise to continue to ignore you. Why don’t you just do the same.
FFLEO,
I commend you on your excellent restraint in not commenting on the one-sided “cat-fight” sandwiched in this thread; you stated once before that you would say no more on this nastiness and you kept your word. I will attempt to learn from your fine example!
CEJ,
You, others, and I owe all of our respect to Professor Turley.
Thank You.
My vote for a replacement is Professor Turley. No one would be more independent than JT.
rafflaw,
Yes, Professor Turley is the most independent man I have known as a public icon.
FFLEO,
Thank-you; but really Thank-you!
Rafflaw,
Seconded!
Patty C.
Your comments at 1:17pm were probably not what Professor Turley had in mind when he requested that you stop attacking Jill.
They really are distasteful and unwarranted. As I recall Jill stated that she has gotten in the habit of not reading any of your posts as they were painful to her; and yet you continue to attempt to get her engage with you, although she is wise to continue to ignore you. Why don’t you just do the same-
—
No. While my comments may be considered ‘distasteful’ by those without first-hand experience of the ‘All Jill All the Time’
BS, my obsevations are certainly not unwarranted nor without merit.
Furthermore, not only does Jill READ my posts, she stalks me and steals my original ideas and dialogue, here, regularly, without ever giving me the credit for ‘her’ new thinking.
She uses my original words without ever giving me the credit or understanding MY original thinking.
Not only is Jill a hack, she is a plagiarist, to boot!!!
I can’t stand her…
I am an original turlee, besides being a licensed law graduate,
I am a physician, as well.
I KNOW what I am talking about, whereas Jill does not…!!!
She is full of cappola, in my view.
Cease Fire. Withdraw All Weapons, including but not limited to claws.
STAY OUT OF IT, AY.
In fact, why don’t you just go back o your hole
-where you came from.
You are ignorant, IMO.
Not only can you not complete a sentence in proper English, you can’t even complete an original thought much less an intelligent one.
Go away…
Please.
How many people would prefer that President Obama selected a woman jurist for the Supreme Court of the United States?
How about a Straw Poll.
Woman:
Gay:
Grey:
Young:
Black:
White:
Liberal:
Centrist:
Conservative:
Other:
The best jurist possible regardless of whatever: FFLEO’s vote
All of my vote predictions notwithstanding, I would like to enlist the help of that bean counter, erm, biometrician Slartibartfast, to tally the votes ‘cause I just know we are going to become overwhelmed with the voting rush to this Straw Poll.
Polls are open 24/7 and thar aint no Poll Tax.
As someone on here who has been watching this site. I am concerned about the mental health of some of people here, one in particular.
Case in point, why has Patty C described in detail of her dislike of a Jill. What did she do to you, Patty C?
Who was it that was blasting Patty C for her conduct?
Today what did this person using the name of “Anonymously Yours” do to upset you?
Are you so selfish that no one else can experss a view which Patty C has not sanctioned?
Why the personal attacks on people that you don’t even know?
BTW Patty C I have read some of your lack luster posts, are you sure you are all together?
If you are as educated as you claim,
it has been lost.
I feel for your Patient’s, as your bed manners are lacking.
If you have a legal practice, you ought to be glad, I do not know your given name as I would file a Request for an Investigation. I do not deem you as sane enough to represent clients in court.
I will pray for the redemption of your soul.
Hon. Jon M.
Sorry to say guys but as much as we all (including me) might wish it Jonathan has no chance, right now, for a SCOTUS appointment. The pity is that the same qualities that would make us be thrilled with his appointment, are hose that would doom it. From the standpoint of our country’s ruling elite, the Corporatists, our Professor would be a “loose cannon” actually using his conscience and his visceral wisdom to render judgment. While we can name many who now and in the past have stood up to this measure once in SCOTUS, none were believed that way before nomination, rather they were seen as creature of the system. Earl Warren, former Republican Governor of California exemplifies this. As did William Douglas, who appeared to have a racist background. I believe that JT would equal or surpass the greatness of these men, but he is too “out front” currently to get the chance.
As someone once said “Politics is the Art of the Possible.” SCOTUS appointments are always political and right now the best man for the job is not possible. Having raised this let me move on to another issue that has permeated this and many other threads and that is the performance or dereliction of duty of our President. It becomes tiresome to me, especially with this intelligent group, to keep reminding people that the man has been in office for 100 days. Came into it facing a financial crisis, massive unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, failing banks, failing car companies, two ill starred wars, an insane health care system and a tax system where the wealthiest people and corporations are taxed at a rate significantly less than their lesser paid employees.
He is also facing a broken electoral system, where money rules, as shown by yesterday’s vote in the senate against mortgage aid to needy homeowners, where 12 members of his own party, flush with banks campaign contributions, voted against the people’s interests. Finally, as we all know given JT’s air time and our various threads this country committed war crimes, torture and other extra-constitutional
behavior that requires redress and punishment. Though a constant campaign of fear waged by Bush/Cheney and supported by a supposedly moderate punditry, more American’s believe that torture keeps them safe, than the truth which is that it doesn’t.
Throughout my many comments here I have never once said that people should not continue to decry these horrors, nor that punishment is not necessary. It becomes tiresome though to find many threads taken up with self-fulfilling prophecies of why our President is a phony and is dragging his feet. I see all too many pundits on the Left quoted as if their words have deeper insight, meaning and factual basis. I lived through this before in the 60’s and followed “prophets”
like Howard Zinn, Richard Cloward, Tom Hayden, George Wylie and Alexander Coxburn. They were false prophets and their suggestions made things worse, because in the “purity” of their vision they neglected to understand just how political systems, particularly ours works. In their wake they left more death and destruction, then that they proposed to end.
Some of these are still alive, like Zinn and Nader, and rather then having learned from experienced they have hardened their original views to justify their own failures.
The only person from the Left back then who really had it right was the great Saul Alinsky, who truly understood that he must work with the possible, rather than the ideal. His legacy has remained effective all this time and wouldn’t you know it our President, Harvard Law Review in tow, went to Chicago to learn the Alinsky method. As a long time veteran of these wars and as someone who has made many a mistake following false idols/ideals I trust this guy to have his heart in the right place and to understand how to really accomplish much of what our country needs. As a born radical, having entered my seventh decade and still keeping the faith I am overjoyed by our President’s first hundred days. As such though that doesn’t mean that I don’t disagree and don’t protest. It means that I try to put context and insight into how this all is being handled and I conclude that like Clinto with “don’t ask, don’t tell” President Obama would now be having his problems had he faced this directly and not obliquely.
Hon. Jon M,
Who should replace Justice Souter? A centrist, etc.
You will see the next Justice of the US Supreme Court come from the Midwest. Maybe Iowa or possibility of Indianapolis, Indiana.
Patty C, Uh Jill, Anon and all, this tube is for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ailMaddN4Vo
I suggest, close your eyes and use headphones.
In today’s New York Times there is a view of Justice Souter’s humble home; it seems to me like an invasion of his privacy
but at the same time it’s truly extraordinary (given his great position) to see how very simply he lives; and I admire him more for it. Best wishes Justice Souter on your retirement!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/04souter.html?_r=1&hp
CEJ,
Is it nice to know that even though you have a position in life, that you value who you are more than anything else. You are not afraid to pass the hat or torch in this case to a younger person. I am of the understanding that Jurist Souter can well afford a lavish lifestyle and chooses his humble home and simple life.
Souter is a good man, I was surprised by a number of people that first of all that he was picked, secondly, that he stood up for the social conscience of the court.
I have always said that we should have two Supreme Courts, One the Criminal Court of Last Resort and the Supreme Civil Court. I am not sure how to implement them nor all of the details but, it has always been a ideal.
CEJ:
Rustic and idyllic indeed, but would a coat of paint kill him?
esspo727272,
Now, now Souter enjoys his “Right to Privacy” let him have it. I was thinkin, per chance, maybe we ought to help Scalia, Roberts and Thomas with a new coat of paint or stain.
We can all just show up, be organized of course and paint it while they are at work. Won’t they be surprised when they get home.
esspo727272 = Messpo727272
Looks like Justice Souter is a typical Yankee, my aunt was the female equivalent. Before she married my uncle she lived in her parents house in Washington, New Hampshire which is in the same area of New Hampshire as is Weare. She had multiple cats and no children, although some would argue that, as she was married to my uncle.
The house actually had a 2 holer in the barn/garage attached to the house. Indoor plumbing, ahhh (they did have real facilities in the main house). Personally, I think those people rather strange. Probably due to some sort of hold over philosophy from the Pilgrims.
As a side bar (is that the right terminology), I think we ought to start teaching that Jamestown was the true and proper beginnings of the US. A settlement for the purpose of commerce in the new world funded by investors wanting to reap obscene profits. Now that is a founding story I can embrace.
Anon:
its only one s, its a little early for Uncle Jack isnt it?
AY:
“I was thinkin, per chance, maybe we ought to help Scalia, Roberts and Thomas with a new coat of paint or stain.We can all just show up, be organized of course and paint it while they are at work. Won’t they be surprised when they get home.”
*********
We could call our little project “Habitat for the Hopeless.” Maybe get a reality show going called, “Extreme MakeAFuss-Over.”
Bron98,
One can only hope? That Roberts who appears to look like a deer in the head light syndrome, could make Americas day.
Messpo727272,
Just like a slight invasion of privacy should not be of a concern to law abiding Americans, such as these fine Jurist.
I think that the reality show would be a success. Although I do not normally watch these shows, I would do that, I would make an exception.
I have not seen anything on this Blawg about Bush and his Troubles at SMU. A Judge in Dallas has denied his Attorneys motions for Summary Disposition until he submits to a Deposition.
You all left out Sammy A.! Or is he not in the same league.
Anon:
what is Georges problem at SMU?
Bron98,
Sorry, and your Sammy too.
GeoII, has problems with the land for his Presidential Library. The Area is land locked and most of the homes are in the Million to 100 Million dollar range. Apparently SMU just said that they needed the land for development. The people who were forced to sell stated that they would not have sold it if they had known it was for GeoII library.
SMU lost a number of Donors over it, a number of faculty have cut off donations as well.
Then after all was found out, the suits commenced.
Anon:
that is what I figured.
How can the Judicial branch enter the 21st Century? One major way would be appoint a Native American woman. The tradition of the Court has been appointments by state, region and religion and now by ethnicity and race. There are now 7 white men, 1 black man and 1 white woman; 4 white Catholics, 1 Black Catholic, 2 white Jewish adherents and 2 white Protestants. 4 Harvard Law School grads, 2 grad from Yale Law School, 1 from Northwestern University, a Chicago law school and 2 from Stanford Law School. That is over 1/2 the Court educated in the Northeast, 1 in the Mid-West and 2 from the West Coast. The Court is heavily weighted towards married, white, male, Catholics from Harvard. With that in mind we need the opposite to balance the scales of justice. Who is left out? Black women, Native American women, Hispanic women, Asian Women. Where are the Japanese women and men from the post-WWII relocation camps? Where are the Chinese women and men from the Gold Rush days? Where are the Vietnamese women and men that migrated here after the Vietnam War? Where are the Pacific Islanders? Where are women and men from India?
Why are there 19 states that have never had a SCOTUS justice? Those states are predominately from the Pacific Northwest and North Center of the nation that have always felt left out of the nation. A black woman from Wisconsin, Delaware, Rhode Island , Vermont or Florida. A Native American woman from West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota or Nebraska. A Hispanic woman from New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, or Idaho. A woman from Asian decent from Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon or Washington.
Then there are Amish, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Wiccans that have never been on the Court.
Congress should look into the tradition of 1 Justice per 1 Circuit Court which changed after Lincoln was assassinated when the Court had 10 members to head the 10 Circuit Courts. This would mean that the Obama Administration through Congress could potentially increase the size of the Court to cover the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Therefore the President would be unable logically to appoint a Hispanic woman unless she were not Catholic as that would tip the weight of the Court. He also would be unable logically to appoint a white woman as that would impede the future of the Court’s balance to have Japanese, Native American, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian of Asian descent, Korean and Hispanic women on the Court to balance the white men.
I’ve been looking for this poem by my favorite author for some time having remembered just enough to know it was a fitting tribute but not enough to find it. I now offer to a fine jurist and man:
Good-bye
by Ralph Waldo Emerson, (1803 – 1882)
Good-bye, proud world! I’m going home:
Thou art not my friend, and I’m not thine.
Long through thy weary crowds I roam;
A river-ark on the ocean brine,
Long I’ve been tossed like the driven foam;
But now, proud world! I’m going home.
Good-bye to Flattery’s fawning face;
To Grandeur with his wise grimace;
To upstart Wealth’s averted eye;
To supple Office, low and high;
To crowded halls, to court and street;
To frozen hearts and hasting feet;
To those who go, and those who come;
Good-bye, proud would! I’m going home.
I am going to my own hearth-stone,
Bosomed in yon green hills alone—
A secret nook in a pleasant land,
Whose groves the frolic fairies planned;
Where arches green, the livelong day,
Echo the blackbird’s roundelay,
And vulgar feet have never trod
A spot that is sacred to thought and God.
O, when I am safe in my sylvan home,
I tread on the pride of Greece and Rome;
And when I am stretched beneath the pines,
Where the evening star so holy shines,
I laugh at the lore and the pride of man,
At the sophist schools and the learned clan;
For what are they all, in their high conceit,
When man in the bush with God may meet?