11 replies to this topic

[brvheart]

I'm assume that Ginsberg will very soon as well. Obama will get 3 for sure... as John Paul Stevens is almost 90 years old... but he will probably end up getting 4 picks in the next 8 years! That makes him easily the most influential president in the last 70-80 years... maybe longer.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=103694193

[Balloon guy]

All three lefties...not much change expected

The conservatives are free rolling

[LongLiveYorke]

All three lefties...not much change expected

The conservatives are free rolling

Yeah, but imagine if McCain won.

[brvheart]

Yeah, but imagine if McCain won.

Not having checks & balances is bad in general... so I agree with you. For this reason, I'm fairly concerned about the senate. Are you?

[hblask]

These three are lefties, but at this point I can imagine Obama picking someone WAY worse, someone who finds "the right to government services" lurking behind every tax increase. This is sort of disturbing. I feel like I should try to be optimistic until we see who he picks. But I was optimistic that Obama would be a centrist, moderate president, and in the words of a wise man, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..... ..... ....... we won't get fooled again."

Does anyone know, do the justices decide when to retire based on who is president? For example, will the more conservative judges try to hold out for 4 years when Obama loses in a landslide?

[LongLiveYorke]

Does anyone know, do the justices decide when to retire based on who is president? For example, will the more conservative judges try to hold out for 4 years when Obama loses in a landslide?

They'd never admit it, but of course they must.

[offset]

These three are lefties, but at this point I can imagine Obama picking someone WAY worse, someone who finds "the right to government services" lurking behind every tax increase. This is sort of disturbing. I feel like I should try to be optimistic until we see who he picks. But I was optimistic that Obama would be a centrist, moderate president, and in the words of a wise man, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..... ..... ....... we won't get fooled again."

Does anyone know, do the justices decide when to retire based on who is president? For example, will the more conservative judges try to hold out for 4 years when Obama loses in a landslide?

funny how different perceptions can be. i'm sure you have liberal decisions he's made in mind, but from what i've seen i've thought he's slightly renegged(sp) on his campaign promises the other way.

[CaneBrain]

These three are lefties, but at this point I can imagine Obama picking someone WAY worse, someone who finds "the right to government services" lurking behind every tax increase. This is sort of disturbing. I feel like I should try to be optimistic until we see who he picks. But I was optimistic that Obama would be a centrist, moderate president, and in the words of a wise man, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..... ..... ....... we won't get fooled again."

Does anyone know, do the justices decide when to retire based on who is president? For example, will the more conservative judges try to hold out for 4 years when Obama loses in a landslide?

obviously they try to plan their retirements with politics in mind. another reason why the Supreme Court is kind of a jopke at this point.

I am not sure you could find someone more liberal than Souter, to be honest. Ginsburg is a bit more fair.

It is not like any of this will change anything. The die-hard conservative bloc of the Court is young (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas) so the make-up of the court will stay 4 big lefties, 4 big righties, and Anthony Kennedy in the middle which ensures that one man will be making all our most important legal decisions. Gravy.

Also, I find it hilarious that you think Obama is going to lose in a landslide in 4 years. You're kidding, right? Incumbents rarely lose and they certainly dont lose in landslides to parties that cant get it together in any way, shape or form.

[brvheart]

These three are lefties, but at this point I can imagine Obama picking someone WAY worse, someone who finds "the right to government services" lurking behind every tax increase. This is sort of disturbing. I feel like I should try to be optimistic until we see who he picks. But I was optimistic that Obama would be a centrist, moderate president, and in the words of a wise man, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..... ..... ....... we won't get fooled again."

Does anyone know, do the justices decide when to retire based on who is president? For example, will the more conservative judges try to hold out for 4 years when Obama loses in a landslide?

this:

They'd never admit it, but of course they do.

[hblask]

Some early speculation on Souter's replacement from the evil minds at CATO:

Speculation now turns to possible replacements, and what President Obama will do with his first chance to fill a seat on the high court. Will he risk a big political battle on this issue so early in his term, or will he appoint someone more confirmable but less pleasing to his base?

He is under great pressure to appoint a woman, and the three leading female candidates are new Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood. Kagan would be an almost-certain pick a year from now, but having been just confirmed to be the so-called Tenth Justice, she might be seen as too green for elevation. Sotomayor — because she is Hispanic and despite a mixed judicial record — was the odds-on favorite until the Court took up the employment discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano (argued just last week), an appeal of a bizarre opinion Sotomayor joined that denied the claims of firefighters who had been passed over for promotion because of their race. That leaves Wood, a renowned authority on antitrust, international trade, and federal civil procedure, whose age (58) suggests that this is likely the last vacancy for which she will be considered. Wood offers a seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, and is thus the best nominee supporters of constitutionalism and the rule of law can hope for at this time.

If they are correct it would be a miracle, since the number of ways they can be wrong vastly outnumbers they ways they could be right.

Speaking of (W)right, here is who I think Obama will pick:

[vbnautilus]

They'd never admit it, but of course they must.

Souter actually told the Washington Post during the campaign that he would retire if Obama was elected.

[LongLiveYorke]

Souter actually told the Washington Post during the campaign that he would retire if Obama was elected.

Okay, so they sometimes admit it.