Souter retiring

[whisper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/...outer_retiring

This should be interesting.

agreed. He wasn't my bet for the next justice to step down.

[Jasper07734]

Maybe Obama will appoint a stealth conservative to replace the retiring stealth liberal.

But since that obviously won't happen, maybe I'll just curse Republicans for the fact that it'll be a generation before we have another opportunity to stamp out more of the liberal activism from the High Court.

I'll do it for you:

Obama won't appoint a stealth conservative on purpose, but I don't think Bush appointed a stealth liberal on purpose. You never really know for sure what people will do when they enter a new situation.

I expect Ginsberg to step down during Obama's term, too.

[Jasper07734]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I expect Ginsberg to step down during Obama's term, too.

Not to mention Old Man Stevens.

Yup, we could see a lot of turnover in the next couple of years.

[Jasper07734]

Originally Posted by article

Souter is the court's 105th justice, only its sixth bachelor.

I didn't realize Souter is gay.

[SamTheEagle]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Obama won't appoint a stealth conservative on purpose, but I don't think Bush appointed a stealth liberal on purpose. You never really know for sure what people will do when they enter a new situation.

I expect Ginsberg to step down during Obama's term, too.

Without really being able to explain why, I think it's much more possible to nominate a stealth liberal than to nominate a stealth conservative.

[NoName]

I don't know if even Souter truly was a "stealth" nominee in the sense that he hid from President Bush what kind of a justice he intended to be. I think he just "grew in office" - the dreaded Greenhouse Effect.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1241153825.shtml

With the news that Justice Souter is retiring, it might be a good time remind everyone of their talking points for the months ahead.

Republicans first:

The Supreme Court is losing a Republican nominee who has often been a swing vote. He has been a one-case-at-a-time jurist in the tradition of Justice Harlan. We need to be very careful about shifting the Court too far to the left, turning back the clock to the 1960s. Balance is essential, and Obama should nominate someone who was essentially a centrist like Justice Souter.

Democrats next:

President Bush stocked the Supreme Court with extreme conservatives like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court hasn't had a a real progressive in decades, and it is time to have just one to balance out the Four Hoursemen of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Besides, Justice Souter has been a reliable liberal vote, and another liberal vote won't actually change the outcome of any cases. Balance is essential, so Obama should nominate some who will balance out the court's conservatives.

[Pseudolus]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle

Without really being able to explain why, I think it's much more possible to nominate a stealth liberal than to nominate a stealth conservative.

How about "because the political and social pressures on a Justice will be pushing him to 'grow in office' in a leftish direction"?