http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_stevens WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill. Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed "well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term." His announcement had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday. Stevens began signaling a possible retirement last summer when he hired just one of his usual complement of four law clerks for the next court term. He acknowledged in several interviews that he was contemplating stepping down and would certainly do so during Obama's presidency. Chief Justice John Roberts said in a written statement that Stevens has earned the gratitude and admiration of the American people. "He has enriched the lives of everyone at the Court through his intellect, independence, and warm grace," Roberts said. Stevens informed Obama in a one-paragraph letter addressed to "My dear Mr. President." The court released the letter along with the chief justice's statement on a day when the court wasn't even in session. Just before the court's announcement, Obama, en route back to Washington from a trip to Prague, had called a Friday afternoon Rose Garden statement, saying the subject would be a West Virginia mine accident. The timing of Stevens' announcement leaves ample time for the White House to settle on a successor and Senate Democrats, who control 59 votes, to conduct confirmation hearings and a vote. Republicans have not ruled out an attempt to delay confirmation. The leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59. Stevens' departure will not change the court's conservative-liberal split because Obama is certain to name a liberal-leaning replacement. But the new justice is not likely to be able to match Stevens' ability to marshal narrow majorities in big cases. Stevens was able to draw the support of the court's swing votes, now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy, to rein in or block some Bush administration policies, including the detention of suspected terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, its tilt toward protecting businesses from some lawsuits and its refusal to act against global warming.
A wonderful profile article of him done by the New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin
snark from TPM -- Who Does He Think He Is? Next thing you know Obama is going to stomp on the Constitution by taking it upon himself to pick Justice Stevens' replacement. Will the madness never end. --David Kurtz
A man that taught con-law at nation's top law school "stomps" on the constitution? Ain't bad at all, ain't bad at all. Better than the idiot pooping on the constitution before him.
Wow, via CNN about the next nominee-to-be discussion... Senate Republicans immediately laid down their markers Friday over what they expect from Obama. "Every president has an obligation to nominate judges who understand and are committed to their proper role in our system of government," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "As I have said for many years, someone who would be an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, also cautioned against picking what he called an "activist" judge. "Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an evenhanded reading of the law," McConnell said. What? You mean activist judges like the ones you spineless corporate drones stacked on the court, leading to campaign finance deformation this year? The rhetoric is so far beyond anything in 1984 (the book) that it defies comment.
WOW!!! That was fast Top Judiciary GOPer Signals Health Care Could Be Next Court Nominee's Litmus Test
I'd put my money on Diane Wood, but wouldn't count out Karlan or Kagan. I wouldn't mind seeing Karlan though, because the inevitably ugly game of "Let's beat up on the Lesbian feminazi" that Senate GOP'ers would play would, much like last year's "Let's bash this wise latina boriquena", rally their base, but further alienate them from rational people in time for the elections.
so, you'd prefer Justice Steven's opinion in, say, a case like Kelo, to that of the conservatives on the court, Justice Thomas, for example?
here's one the the "corporatists," writing in Kelo: This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' could you share what you find objectionable about the above "rhetoric?"
Could you share your newfound concern for Takings clause cases and eminent domain? By Control V'ing us to where you are parroting this from? It's very amusing that you have latched on to this. I remember in law school all the federalist society dorks (and trust me, they were dorks even for law school, which is pretty bad) would get up and arms and go Ron Paul -style batsh-t crazy over takings & eminent domain. I never really bothered to give a **** about the Takings clause or eminent domain. In years of practice, I never really ever had to make a takings /eminent domain argument. Honestly other than isolated cases nobody really ****ing cares.
i was just responding to buh-bob's "rhetoric" about evil corporatist republicans on the court, and pointing out that it's not quite that simple. and, by extension, your own disdain for CT. i'd note that in Kelo, and (as mentioned earlier) Raich, two very different cases, with two very different majorities, he was on the "right" (read: "correct") side in each- the only justice i could say that about. do you disagree?
