David Souter to retire

[OOO]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/jus...ring/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than 18 years on the nation's highest court, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring, a source close to Souter told CNN Thursday.

 

 

David Souter has served more than 18 years on the Supreme Court.

 

Souter will leave after the current court term recesses in June, the source said.

 

Filling Souter's seat would be President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court appointment -- and the first since George W. Bush's picks of Samuel Alito in 2006 and Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005.

 

Souter, 69, was tapped for the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, but disappointed many conservatives when he turned out to be a typical old-fashioned Yankee Republican -- a moderate, with an independent, even quirky streak.

 

Souter's departure will leave the two oldest justices -- and the most liberal -- still on the bench. Retirements for John Paul Stevens, 89, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, have been rumored for years, with many expecting that one or the other would be the first to give a new Democratic president a Supreme Court vacancy.

 

Souter's decision came as something of a surprise, although he has long been known to prefer the quiet of his New Hampshire farmhouse to the bustle of the nation's capital

[Edie]

It probably won't shake up much as far as voting goes. We need Thomas or Kennedy or Scalia to hurry up and retire. Not to mention Alito or Roberts, but their odds of retiring during an Obama administration is loooow.

[bobbob1313]

I really hate the supreme court tug of war...

[mountain bed]

I really hate the supreme court tug of war...

I really hate the confirmation process. This is ALWAYS ugly, no matter who we're talking about.

[Tweedling]

Isn't a little balance good? I don't like it when things get extremely lopsided, there's nothing to keep things in check.

[John Smith]

Isn't a little balance good? I don't like it when things get extremely lopsided, there's nothing to keep things in check.

 

2 or 3 ideological justices and the remainder being centrists would be perfect for me. I have seen Souter as more of a centrist over the years, though some on the right would vehemently disagree with that opinion.

[bleedorange]

2 or 3 ideological justices and the remainder being centrists would be perfect for me. I have seen Souter as more of a centrist over the years, though some on the right would vehemently disagree with that opinion.

 

I would be very interested to see the world through your eyes, where black is white and up is down.

 

Just for a few seconds, though.

[MattZ]

Yeah, JS, I am on the left, and I would disagree with you. It's not just folks on the right. Souter has been a reliable vote in the liberal bloc on this court. Rarely, if ever, has he been a swing vote.

[John Smith]

I would be very interested to see the world through your eyes, where black is white and up is down.

 

Just for a few seconds, though.

 

I used to live in your world for 30+ years and I didn't like it one bit after a while. Yep I used to be a ditto head type, though Rush and his ilk pushed me away, probably the middle of the Clinton adminsitration. I'm taking it that you disagree that Souter is more of a centrist. That is fine, most conservatives view him as a radical liberal because they view the world through such a far right prisim that is so distorted that the near right looks like the left, the true middle looks far left and the true far left is practically invisible to them. Of course that is why the "big tent party" is shrinking daily.

[MattZ]

That is fine, most conservatives view him as a radical liberal because they view the world through such a far right prisim that is so distorted that the near right looks like the left, the true middle looks far left and the true far left is practically invisible to them. Of course that is why the "big tent party" is shrinking daily.

 

JS, clearly Souter isn't "as liberal" as someone like a Ginsburg, but this court has been split into a liberal and conservative bloc for a long time. And Souter has been a reliable vote in the liberal bloc almost without fail. Whether that makes him a radical liberal or moderate liberal is beside the point, isn't it? His voting record speaks for itself. Doesn't it?

[bleedorange]

I used to live in your world for 30+ years and I didn't like it one bit after a while. Yep I used to be a ditto head type, though Rush and his ilk pushed me away, probably the middle of the Clinton adminsitration. I'm taking it that you disagree that Souter is more of a centrist. That is fine, most conservatives view him as a radical liberal because they view the world through such a far right prisim that is so distorted that the near right looks like the left, the true middle looks far left and the true far left is practically invisible to them. Of course that is why the "big tent party" is shrinking daily.

 

[John Smith]

Yeah, JS, I am on the left, and I would disagree with you. It's not just folks on the right. Souter has been a reliable vote in the liberal bloc on this court. Rarely, if ever, has he been a swing vote.

 

I'm talking in terms of judicial phillosophy. Souter votes with the "liberal block" because the conservative bock is so far to the right. The "liberal decisions" have not been truely earth shatteringly liberal for20+ years. The court has moved so far to the right that someone like Souter or Kennedy look liberal in comparison to the Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas block. It is the nature of the court that makes Souter appear to be liberal. It's not some wacky far out sh*t I came up with by reading f&*%'d up blogs and left wing literature. When the SC releases a case relating to tax I used to read it, and even in those dry as popcorn fart cases you can see over time how the court has shifted. If this were 1963 and Souter was on the court he would be voting center right on most cases. Look at the votes many of the 5-4 votes sure Souter votes with the "liberal justices" But on the 7-2 cases he votes with the far right guys, rarely, if ever, is he on the 2 side of the vote. It's the perspective of how the court is viewed. And see the court way differently than some here do because I read this stuff and try to interpret it as part of my job.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong here. I fullly recognize Souter's drift from the right towards the left. However I view it as much as his drift as the court moving rightward so relatively to each other he appears to be more liberal, and his phillosophy has turned a bit. But he is far from being a Thurogood Marshall.

 

That all said I think that the court is going to rule against the voting rights act and in all honesty I agree with overturning it, though probbaly for different reasons than the majority opinion will write.

 

Trivia...the little town I live in has been involved in two SC cases. most recently a search and seizure issue in 2000. The other was a tax case in the 1930's.

[bleedorange]

I'm talking in terms of judicial phillosophy. Souter votes with the "liberal block" because the conservative bock is so far to the right. The "liberal decisions" have not been truely earth shatteringly liberal for20+ years. The court has moved so far to the right that someone like Souter or Kennedy look liberal in comparison to the Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas block. It is the nature of the court that makes Souter appear to be liberal. It's not some wacky far out sh*t I came up with by reading f&*%'d up blogs and left wing literature. When the SC releases a case relating to tax I used to read it, and even in those dry as popcorn fart cases you can see over time how the court has shifted. If this were 1963 and Souter was on the court he would be voting center right on most cases. Look at the votes many of the 5-4 votes sure Souter votes with the "liberal justices" But on the 7-2 cases he votes with the far right guys, rarely, if ever, is he on the 2 side of the vote. It's the perspective of how the court is viewed. And see the court way differently than some here do because I read this stuff and try to interpret it as part of my job.

 

Yes, and the rest of us are just idiots. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.

[John Smith]

 

 

Yes, and the rest of us are just idiots. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.

 

Because that is exactly what I said, Nice paraphrasing me. I could have saved my self the trouble.

 

If you actually took the few seconds to try interpret the line you highlighted rather than simply going knee jerk ballistic and thinking I

[bleedorange]

 

 

 

Because that is exactly what I said, Nice paraphrasing me. I could have saved my self the trouble.

 

If you actually took the few seconds to try interpret the line you highlighted rather than simply going knee jerk ballistic and thinking I

[John Smith]

Thanks for the lecture. I'll just go back to being the gun-toting, Rush-listening, ideological redneck for Texas Independence that you have me painted as.

 

If that is how you think I view you, then nothing I will say will ever change your mind. And it wasn't a lecture it was an explanation of me. But thanks for letting me know I am wrong on all subjects.

[bjorn_skurj]

Let's talk nominees. Bet you a nickel it's gonna be Ron Kuby.