Souter to retire... let the fun begin!

[imaplanner]

Obama keeps talking about appointing someone "impartial" and nonpartisan. I think that would be a mistake. In an ideal world that would be great- but Bush's last two picks are about as partisan as you can get. We need some kind of wacko liberal just to retain some degree of balance on the court.

[ofos]

Originally posted by imaplanner

We need some kind of wacko liberal just to retain some degree of balance on the court.

Shouldn't be hard to find one. But hey, don't limit him to Americans, there are lots of good wackos out there in the rest of the world too! Just think how that could improve our world image.

[imaplanner]

Originally posted by ofos

Shouldn't be hard to find one. But hey, don't limit him to Americans, there are lots of good wackos out there in the rest of the world too! Just think how that could improve our world image.

Good point. Imagine how our image would be improved with terrorists if he appointed a jihadist.

[mgk920]

The chatter that I have been hearing is that he wants someone with "empathy" for the post. With that it sounds to me like he wants someone who'll take the blindfold off of the statue of Justice, rather than someone who'll look at the facts of a case and weigh it against the law and the Constitution as it is written.

Grrrrr....

Mike

[Seana]

From Obama's perspective, the savviest nomination would be Hillary Clinton. He'd be permanently removing a thorn from his side; she's amazingly qualified; her ideals are his; she happens to be female.

Once she's confirmed, nominate her husband for Secretary of State. Bill is a pro at negotiating with terrorists and obnoxious leaders of foreign countries.

[Suburb Repairman]

Originally posted by Seana

From Obama's perspective, the savviest nomination would be Hillary Clinton. He'd be permanently removing a thorn from his side; she's amazingly qualified; her ideals are his; she happens to be female.

Once she's confirmed, nominate her husband for Secretary of State. Bill is a pro at negotiating with terrorists and obnoxious leaders of foreign countries.

Can you imagine the shitfest that would occur during the confirmation process... for both of them?!? YIKES!

I know that is not where I would spend my political capital. I don't view her as a thorn in his side; I think Sec. of State is a good place for her. Her personality seems more "executive branch," meaning that she likes to be out in a public leadership role. I'm not sure how she would balance that aspect of her personality with the more mundane, backroom role of a justice. Personally, I'd rather see her develop in that Secretary of State role, where I think she can do some great stuff.

[fringe]

I hate to sound so academic, but I think that job should be filled by a legal scholar with a good scholarly record.

Some of the Bush (I&II) appointees were so cynical as to be insults to us all. (Thomas, Myers)

[michaelskis]

There was some talk that Michigan’s Canadian Import Governor was up for the job… but then she reminded everyone that she has never been a judge. If she still gets appointed, may god have mercy on us, because the federal government will not.

[imaplanner]

Originally posted by Suburb Repairman

Can you imagine the shitfest that would occur during the confirmation process... for both of them?!? YIKES!

I know that is not where I would spend my political capital. I don't view her as a thorn in his side; I think Sec. of State is a good place for her. Her personality seems more "executive branch," meaning that she likes to be out in a public leadership role. I'm not sure how she would balance that aspect of her personality with the more mundane, backroom role of a justice. Personally, I'd rather see her develop in that Secretary of State role, where I think she can do some great stuff.

I personally think she could be a very good justice. But I wonder if she would be able to separate out her political opinions from her legal thinking. I know that if I disagreed with her politics i would be really worried about that. That certainly hasn't stopped Scalia or Roberts from being justices however.

[safege]

All of the Supreme Court, up until this point, have been lawyers. There is nothing in the process that they even need to have been lawyers.

1) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) Minnesota.
2) Bill Clinton
3) Hillary Clinton

I'll think of others just as soon as I submit reply on this.

[Mastiff]

Originally posted by imaplanner

We need some kind of wacko liberal just to retain some degree of balance on the court.

So... anyone from the 9th Circuit?

[Suburb Repairman]

Originally posted by imaplanner

I personally think she could be a very good justice. But I wonder if she would be able to separate out her political opinions from her legal thinking. I know that if I disagreed with her politics i would be really worried about that. That certainly hasn't stopped Scalia or Roberts from being justices however.

I think she would be a good and capable justice; I have no qualms about that. I just think her personality is better suited for the executive branch and legislative branch. She seems to like policy development more than I think she would like interpreting the Constitution on someone else's policies.

[imaplanner]

Micheal Steele on Obama mentioning empathy as a consideration:

I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind!



Lol- Full text below.

STEELE: Good morning y’all, we’re back in the house. We’re talking a little bit of Constitution and a little bit Supreme Court. And a whole lot of saving America’s judicial system and saving our rights as citizens and not having empathetic judges decide cases, but rather judges who are actually understanding the rule of law and what the Constitution and those laws are all about. And how to apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts. And adjudicate my case. I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness

[mike gurnee]

To put it in terms Rush would understand, I'm for ther lesbo pinko person with emphathy. Seriously though, Harriet Meyers is the only real candidate.

[Veloise]

Originally posted by michaelskis

There was some talk that Michigan’s Canadian Import Governor was up for the job… but then she reminded everyone that she has never been a judge. If she still gets appointed, may god have mercy on us, because the federal government will not.

^ This statement does not parse.
Skis, did you happen to watch any of the Detroit mayor removal hearing? The gov is a Harvard Law honors grad, fer crissakes.
FYI, she became a US citizen in 1980. (You could look it up.)

Anyway, the selection has been revealed as Sonia Sotomayor; if confirmed, the first Hispanic justice.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=104530389

[Maister]

Originally posted by michaelskis

"There was some talk that Michigan’s Canadian Import Governor was up for the job,"

...he said with great contempt and disdain, entirely oblivious to the irony.

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showp...28&postcount=3

[Seana]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us...pagewanted=all

Passages:

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Tuesday [May 26] that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.
. . .

The president... made it clear that the judge’s inspiring personal story was crucial in his decision. Mr. Obama praised his choice as someone possessing “a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law.”

But those essential qualities are not enough, the president said. Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mr. Obama said, “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” It is vitally important that a justice know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live,” the president said.
. . .

Judge Sotomayor, 54, who has served for more than a decade on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York City, would become the nation’s 111th justice, replacing David H. Souter, who is retiring after 19 years on the bench.
. . .

The first President Bush nominated her in 1991 to the federal district court on the recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, and she was confirmed a year later. President Bill Clinton decided to elevate her to the appeals court in 1997, and she was confirmed a year later.
. . .

Indeed, in nominating the first Hispanic justice, Mr. Obama may appeal to a large and growing constituency whose party loyalty is still very much in play. Hispanic groups have expressed excitement about the idea of one of their own serving on the high court. (Some scholars argue whether Benjamin Cardozo was really the first Hispanic justice, but with his Portuguese-Jewish background, he never identified himself as a Hispanic.)

On the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor has not been involved in many hotly disputed decisions, but one that she participated in is before the Supreme Court right now. As part of a panel, she voted to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out a set of fire department promotion tests because no minority candidates made the top of the list. White firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion are appealing that ruling.

As a district judge, she briefly earned fame in 1995 by ending a Major League Baseball strike, ruling in favor of players and against the owners, who she said were trying to subvert the labor system.
. . .

She also once said at a conference that a “court of appeals is where policy is made,” a statement that has drawn criticism from conservatives who saw it as a sign of judicial activism. Judge Sotomayor seemed to understand at the time that she was making a controversial statement, adding that, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.”

Conservatives quickly pointed to such statements after word of her selection on Tuesday.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

White House officials concluded that such statements, while perhaps providing fodder for opponents, would not be problematic enough to hinder her confirmation. Some officials have said in recent days that they relish the prospect of Republicans standing up against a Hispanic woman with her life story, because it would only damage the G.O.P. with a key voting bloc.
. . .

...Democrats are within reach of the 60 votes necessary to choke off a filibuster, and Republicans concede that they have little hope of blocking confirmation barring unforeseen revelations.
. . .