Courts, Politics, Religion, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

Justice Stevens Declares That He Will Resign During Obama’s Term

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has stated that he “will surely” retire while President Barack Obama is still in office — leaving open only whether he will retire this year or wait later in Obama’s term.

The likelihood is that Stevens will announce his retirement soon. Waiting until next year could throw the nomination into doubt with the mid-term elections approaching. Obama may also feel less able to appoint a solid liberal as he approaches his second term. Obama was criticized by some liberals for his appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled with the conservatives on the Second Circuit on a number of important cases. Waiting until next year would decrease the chances of a strong liberal nomination and could imperil confirmation given Obama’s failing popularity in the polls and resurgent GOP campaigning.

Stevens was nominated to the court by Republican President Gerald R. Ford in 1975 and is the seventh-longest-serving justice with more than 34 years on the court. He is also the second oldest justice to sit on the Court — after Oliver Wendell Holmes.

For the full story, click here.

93 thoughts on “Justice Stevens Declares That He Will Resign During Obama’s Term”

  1. “Obama may also feel less able to appoint a solid liberal as he approaches his second term. “

    I am perplexed why Obama does not feel able to justify a very solid liberal in order to give judicial ‘balance’ to the court. How can anyone argue against ‘balance’?

    For heaven’s sake, nominate a young staunch liberal for ‘balance’, stick to your guns, and it will happen. Do the same thing for the next appointment, too. It’ll be so Rovian that the Rethuglicans will admire it.

  2. I wonder if we can see how far to the right the nation has moved by remembering that a republican nominated Justice Stevens?

    That republican president would probably be seen as a lefty liberal today.

  3. The answer is YES:

    New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment

  4. Prof. Turley would be a great choice for SCOTUS. The Supreme Court needs a little Con Law training. Plus, his appointment would make the Republican Senator’s heads spin!

  5. Buddha:

    ” … should our host be the next SCOTUS appointment, I will gladly start chumming the waters for you and the others.”

    *************

    A gracious and fitting offer. Let’s see what happens.

  6. I will step in here and say publicly what I have stated privately: should our host be the next SCOTUS appointment, I will gladly start chumming the waters for you and the others.

  7. Vince – Thanks for the other links. Sorry to have gone off-thread, a bit. (Work (and sleep) consume so much of my time that I miss a lot around here.)

    And mespo – Of course, I was careful to say “someone like Jonathan Turley.” But the “clerk issue” didn’t occur to me. Were the good Professor to leave, this blog would fall apart. And we couldn’t have that.

  9. anon nurse:

    “(And we would be fortunate, indeed, to have someone like Jonathan Turley replace Justice Stevens.)”

    **********************

    While I am second to none in my respect for the legal acumen and compassionate judgment of our host, I would regret seeing him appointed to the SCOTUS. He plays a vital role in our national discourse as a voice of calm reason from the left-leaning side ( some would say “reason based”) of the spectrum. As a member of SCOTUS, decorum would prevent his voice from being heard except through the dry language of case opinions, and we would have to leave it up to the Olbermann’s and Maddow’s to articulate the legal perspective. Unfortunately, neither have the cache’ or experience to pull that feat off. Plus, where would I post my fantastic (as in wild) musings?

    On the other hand (note: lawyerly transition), I would certainly defer to his wishes, if that was an ultimate goal and his qualifications are indeed manifest. More importantly from my vantage point, he might even need a clerk ….

  11. (I’m reposting. The quoted portion of the editorial was not obvious in the previous posting. )

    We have some serious busines to attend to before all is lost, if it isn’t already. (And we would be fortunate, indeed, to have someone like Jonathan Turley replace Justice Stevens.)

    There are things going on right now that would make good, decent Americans shudder. When will they be exposed and stopped? Judge Walker’s ruling is a light in the darkness. (Refer to the following editorial.)

    NY Time Editorial: We Can’t Tell You
    Published: April 3, 2010

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04sun1.html?hp

    (begin quote): The chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, Vaughn Walker, ruled last week that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the law of the land for Mr. Bush and that when the government failed to get a warrant to wiretap, it broke the law. He also said that the government could not evade accountability with absurdly broad claims of state secrets.

    This ruling does not end warrantless wiretapping. The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others, however, and the 2008 FISA amendments permit warrantless spying. (end quote)

    I will restate a portion of the last statement because it is critically important:

    “The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others…”

    “There are still others.”

    There are.

  12. We have some serious busines to attend to before all is lost, if it isn’t already. (And we would be fortunate, indeed, to have someone like Jonathan Turley replace Justice Stevens.)

    There are things going on right now that would make good, decent Americans shudder. When will they be exposed and stopped? Judge Walker’s ruling is a light in the darkness. (Refer to the following editorial.)

    NY Time Editorial: We Can’t Tell You
    Published: April 3, 2010

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04sun1.html?hp

    : The chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, Vaughn Walker, ruled last week that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the law of the land for Mr. Bush and that when the government failed to get a warrant to wiretap, it broke the law. He also said that the government could not evade accountability with absurdly broad claims of state secrets.

    This ruling does not end warrantless wiretapping. The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others, however, and the 2008 FISA amendments permit warrantless spying.

    I will restate a portion of the last statement because it is critically important:

    “The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others…”

    “There are still others.”

    There are.

  13. And whom should it be? Turley 4 Me. How about being appointed Chief Judge too?

  14. Now, if we could just get Alito, Roberts, and Scalia to engage in a spirited game of Monkey see-Monkey do.

  15. The debate for Justice Sotomayor and the Health Care bill was just a warmup for this showdown.

  17. What Slarti said.

    And I should know. My gf is Canadian and I know more than one. They are quite involved compared to Americans in general.

    We’re the freaks here iammichellepham. And we come from all over the world with regular posters from Canada, England and Australia with many others stopping by. Most Americans are more concerned about voting on “American Idol” or the new color of M&M’s than an actual election that could impact their lives directly.

  18. iammichellepham,

    I’ve actually found that my Canadian friends are much better informed about their government than most Americans (if only half of Americans were oblivious to government that would be an improvement – and that doesn’t consider the part of the population that cares about politics and thinks that Fox is a source of news…).

  19. I find the American fascination with politics and governmental proceedings so amusing. It’s not like that here in Canada, half the country is oblivious to the ongoings of Parliament.

    Ciao!

  20. Now we just need to find someone close to President Obama to whisper Professor Turley’s name into his ear…

Comments are closed.