home

Justice Stevens To Retire This Year

The AP and MSNBC are reporting that Justice John Paul Stevens will be retiring this year from the SCOTUS. From the SFChronicle.

Let me be the first to say NO TO SUNSTEIN!

Also, a proper tribute post to Justice Stevens, who was an excellent Justice imo, will be forthcoming in a few days.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Reactions To Justice Stevens' Retirement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am very saddened, but not surprised. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    I hope, but won't hold my breath, that Obama appoints not only a real liberal, but also a person who has breadth and depth of intellect and imagination that can be influential.

    I just said in the open (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    its an election year.  he may surprise us.

    Parent
    Won't happen (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    For so many reasons, but a big one is that it's an election year and we don't want to bother too many voters, now do we?

    Parent
    bother - moitvate (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    hmmm

    bother - motivate?

    Parent

    Motivation (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:57:44 AM EST
    Is a two way street. And let's face it, Obama is no raging liberal,  so why would he fight for one?

    Parent
    Raging Liberal? (3.00 / 2) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    Well that is funny, because you do not seem to be a raging liberal either.

    I guess that is not why you hate Obama.

    Parent

    I don't hate anybody (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    I leave that to you.

    But thanks for proving my point - if I think Obama is too conservative , then his choice for SC will DEFINITELY not be another Stevens.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    Gerald Ford was a conservative Republican. Certainly to the right of Obama.

    Parent
    No. Ford wasn't that conservative. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    That was why the deal was made to allow Ford to assume the remainder of Nixon's presidency.

    Nixon was conservative in his day and Obama may well be to the right of Nixon on a number of issues.

    You're comparing apples to oranges in terms of the respective political landscapes in the 70s vs. now.

    We are sort of getting to the point where the political spectrum of leadership has narrowed so much on the Hill that calling Ford or Nixon a Republican in the modern sense doesn't necessarily translate anymore.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    Apples and Oranges, it does not make sense to compare what Ford did to what Obama's choices are, as jbindc seems to be doing, here.

    if I think Obama is too conservative , then his choice for SC will DEFINITELY not be another Stevens.


    Parent
    Nixon was President when Liberals (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    were at the peak of power.....The Democrats had huge majorities in the Congress....With a Republican Congress, Tricky Dick would have looked a lot different....

    Parent
    An interesting what if (none / 0) (#109)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    is imagining 1976 going different- what if instead of Carter the Democratic Party nominates a liberal- shifting left at a point of strength instead of going right, does the DLC ever get off the ground, do we ever even hear about Triangulation?

    Parent
    1976 involved (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    several high-profile/hot liberals largely cancelling themselves out or otherwise getting in too late to matter, thus mostly clearing a path for the more conservative outside insurgent JC.

    A Pres Frank Church or Pres Mo Udall, who could have and would have worked nicely with the solidly Dem Congress, but not the more mavericky Jerry Brown, might well have kept Dems in power in the WH through the early 80s and kept St Ronnie out.

    The shift to the Right didn't start until at least 1978 (Prop 13 in CA), but it could have been stymied in DC had we had a president who was both more liberally inclined and more intelligently inclined to know not to alienate key members of his own party, ferchrissakes ...

    Parent

    Carter won because of Watergate (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    The Resurgence of the Right was  underway....Carter just delayed--for four years-- the all-but inevitable fruition of LBJ's prophecy.

    Parent
    Carter was a Republican pawn (none / 0) (#133)
    by NealB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 07:54:06 PM EST
    though he seemed not to know it at the time. Obama's a Republican queen, glad to be living in the White House with the plane and the limo and the buttons and bows.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    Don't use facts.  It might confuse them.

    Parent
    Though Ford could be (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    as conservative as he needed to be for political purposes.

    Friendly with J. Edgar and the FBI (think Warren Comm'n), and publicly called for the impeachment of liberal  Justice Wm Douglas.

    Nixon tapped him for VP thinking impeachment insurance, in the sense of Ford having a well-known rep for having played football too long w/o a helmet, and his glaring lack of knowledge in foreign affairs.

    Parent

    I thought he tapped Ford (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    because nobody else would have been confirmed.

    Parent
    Dunno about that andg, (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    because the Repubs back then had available a few respected people in congress acceptable to both mod and conservative wings of the party who in turn could have been acceptable to congress overall.  Their senate leader Hugh Scott comes to mind.

    Parent
    bingo (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    if Ford was around today he would be stumbling around doing exactly what Beck and Limpbaugh tell him to do just like his GOP buddies.

    Parent
    Nixon tapped him because Ford (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    had been helping stifle Wright Patman's House Banking Committee investigation.  The Democrats (and certainly Patma) were unaware of that side of the deal and at the time agreed to his appointment.

    That whole mythology about how Ford was such a great resolution to such an ugly problem - pretty much a big lie.

    Ultimately, as is the way in politics, the Democrats punished Patman for his efforts by taking away his Chair.  A lot of people really did not like being forced to engage in impeaching a President, even if he did break laws etc.  The reality is that there is now and basically always has been a real aversion to people with the guts to stand on principle on Capitol Hill.

    Parent

    I see both sides of the issue here (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    I mean certainly we can't ignore the generally rightward shift of the country (the fact is our last two Democratic Presidents would feel pretty comfortable in Eisenhower's admin) but we also can't just allow a free pass, its balancing these two things that's difficult.  [note: the generally rightward shift is not uniform- Obama and Clinton, heck Dubya are far more liberal on Gay Rights than say LBJ ever was]

    Parent
    So simple (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    Not.

    Of course you know that in today's atmosphere, Ford would not be a conservative Republican.

    But it's nice to set you haven't forgotten to stalk me and make silly comments.

    Parent

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    if responding to comments is stalking you do quite a bit of it.

    Parent
    Stalk You? (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    Don't flatter yourself.

    Parent
    Forget the 70s (none / 0) (#110)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    is Reagan a Republican by Today's standards- Amnesty, Arms Control, Preserving Social Security through raising FICA, raising the income tax (after initially slashing it), I mean doesn't all of this stuff kind of make him a dead man (no pun intended) in todays GOP?

    Parent
    But, but, but. CA Legislature is (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    angling to make Reagan's birthday a state holiday, probably without giving state employees a holiday.

    Parent
    Reagan would be a dead man today, yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by NealB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 08:07:19 PM EST
    . Times have changed. So much death. So many gormless leaders modeled on Reagan. Everything is bad and getting worse. Nothing is good or getting better. Think about it. Everything is worse. Nothing is better. Everything. Nothing. It's the worst of times.

    Parent
    And this - among other reasons - is (none / 0) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    why I am not holding my breath.

    But that doesn't mean that those of us who think it is important to maintain a liberal counter-point to people like Scalia and Alito in particular, should not express our desires in this debate.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    I will be pleasantly surprised (shocked, actually) if he names someone comparable to Stevens.

    If he nominates someone who isn't a "safe" choice, they won't get confirmed and that would be a huge body blow during an election year - especially as the fact that, according to WTOP this morning, 40% of voters want their own Congress critter gone - unprecedented in at least the last 4 election cycles.

    Parent

    See... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    Because I think that Obama could appoint Judge Bork and he'd still get tons of trouble from the GOP.

    If they were smart, they'd just go with the correct pick, not the "easy" pick - because NO pick will be easy.

    Parent

    and if he appointed (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    Dennis Kucninch he would get trouble from that commenter and others here.


    Parent
    The sad thing is that I am really not (none / 0) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:58:28 AM EST
    confident that the Obama Administration has the respect for the intellect of voters to believe that they could motivate voters with a great pick here.  I tend to think that they will continue their practice of opting for the lowest common denominator - and pay for it at the polls.  Sigh.

    Parent
    Thank you Justice Stevens (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    for getting going while the going is good. You've served us well.


    NB: I think the politics of this (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    is probably a plus for Dems. At least let's get Jeff Sessions being himself on TV again.

    Parent
    it's almost like (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    they should have saved Sotomayor for this one.

    I don't know how the GOP could have made bigger fools of themselves.

    Parent

    The GOP will react that way to almost anyone (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    Obama could nominate.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#113)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    but Sotamayor had great optics- old white guy yells nonsensical crap at Hispanic woman.

    Parent
    Imagine (none / 0) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    if they'd done that and then followed up by rolling out Immigration Reform in mid-August- would a significant number of Hispanics vote for the GOP for the next decade?

    Parent
    in an election year? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:58:30 AM EST
    absolutely

    Parent
    Promote Professor Tribe. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:54:33 AM EST


    Too old (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    Who is Obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    going to pick that would embrace his foreign policy (assassinating American citizens) and still be considered liberal?

    I'm not particularly optimistic.  

    I'll wait for the offical speculation (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 09:57:43 AM EST
    Bit I expect Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be the nominee and there will be interesting debate on the Left and Center LEft over her.

    I support Kagan for the Court.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    I think the positions she's taken to piss liberals off as SG will help smooth her path. And I don't expect them to reflect how she votes on the Court.

    Plus, picking a woman is smart politics.

    Parent

    I just hope that he doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    nominate Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    Either of those would be (none / 0) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    acceptable to Capt Howdy and Squeaky.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    why?

    Parent
    what (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    I was wondering what that meant too.

    Parent
    Just listening to the confirmation (none / 0) (#114)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    hearings for either of them would be worth it (assuming they'd either withdraw or be rejected)- my god Palin's quote on Bachmann is the pinnacle of vapidity.

    Parent
    since I am a novice (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    what positions has she taken to piss liberals

    Parent
    If you have the patience, read Glenn Greenwald's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    archives. She's the government's top lawyer, and she's defended unpopular Bush Admin. carryover policies.

    Parent
    Frankly, what positions she takes as SG (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    count for nothing in my book.  Thurgood Marshall was SG under LBJ for awhile, for goodness' sake.  If we can't have Pam Karlan, then Diane Wood is the one for me, I think.

    Parent
    That sounds good (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    and, who knows, maybe lightening will strike and Karlan will be the pick....

    Parent
    Which is what the SG (none / 0) (#115)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    does- generally administrations fight for established law even if they may not personally agree with it.

    Parent
    and from HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    Conservatives are already targeting Kagan, circulating a memo arguing that she lacks the experience to serve on the Supreme Court and claiming her positions are "disturbingly out of the mainstream."

    Elena Kagan: Supreme Court Nominee? All You Need To Know

    sounds pretty good to me.  your comment suggests she would be controversial on the left?  why?


    Parent

    Preventive Detention (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    It has been an ongoing debate I have had with Glenn Greenwald on the subject.

    Parent
    ah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    IMHO if Greenwald is her biggest problem she doesnt have a big problem


    Parent
    Silly (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    Greenwald is a great leal analyst.

    Agree or disagree, his views should be taken seriously.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    who do you think Obama would pick that would cause him a big problem?  The glory days of lefty activism working on him seems to have stopped at John Brennan's non-appointment to the CIA post.

    Parent
    Some of us would like to know your opinion (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    of recent capture or shoot to kill policy re the U.S. citizen iman. Greemwald emphasises the target isn't on a "battlefield."

    Parent
    I think it is more complicated (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:19:27 AM EST
    than Greenwald makes it out to be.

    Parent
    I think it often is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    and I am pretty sure I am not alone.  hence the above comment.

    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    did you hear the hearts breaking with that comment of yours?

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:48:43 AM EST
    agreement with Greenwald from BTD is something too many people necessarily expect around here.

    Parent
    how many comments (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    have I read in the last few day wishing BTD was here to lead the charge against this terrible terrible thing that has no and could never have any justification?

    actually, it more complicated than that.
    I couldnt have said better. or even as well.

    Parent

    Apparently, you have a low opinion of BTD's (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    analysis on such subjects. I don't recall any threads lamenting that BTD was not here to "lead the charge" on anything as though they already knew what his analysis would reveal. No one took off running and screaming on the subject, and many of us value his opinion and insights into things that seem like there's much more beneath the surface.

    I, for one, would still like to see BTD do a post on the subject.

    Parent

    thats a stupid thing to say (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    Apparently, you have a low opinion of BTD's analysis on such subjects

    what on earth do you base that on?

    Parent

    Read your own comment, CH (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    Better yet, read all your comments where you have decided people have said things that you know better what they really meant by them. Why do you take exception when it happens to you?

    Frankly, I don't know why anyone else needs to comment here...you manage both sides of every thread you enter....if someone doesn't say something you want to snipe them for, you tell them they did and start shooting.  

    Parent

    read my own comment? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    you mean this one?

    actually, its more complicated than that.
    I couldnt have said better. or even as well.

    try harder.

    Parent

    How did you come up with that? Greenwald (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    emphasised the target isn't anywhere near a "battlefield."  BTD has stated, in his view, an "enemby combatant" need not be anywhere near a battlefiled.  Could be a fundrasier in Indonesia, for example.

    Parent
    Its troubling (none / 0) (#117)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:39:23 PM EST
    but then again i'm not sure how its morally different from our past policy of launching cruise missles- I mean its not like we made sure Adam Gadhan wasn't in a suspected AQ site before attacking it with drones or anything.

    Parent
    What should the limits on (none / 0) (#116)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    preventitive detention be though- I mean obviously Glenn's absolutist position is impossible in the age of terror, but there has to be some limitations to the power.

    Parent
    Conservatives (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    would say that about almost anybody...Ezra Klein for example.

    From your article I find this very funny:

    -It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama's unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.

    That is what conservatives think of when they think "executive excesses."  That's hilarious.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    Repubs are going to make noise about anyone he picks - just like with HIR.  They will make enough noise until they get someone they can live with.

    Parent
    I hope we do get another woman (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    the imbalance has started to annoy me.

    Good for Justice Stevens for making the decision now.  I hope he has a nice long retirement. :)

    Parent

    3 women if it is Kagan or Wood or Kalran (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    But Ginsberg is on the verge of retirement too I think.

    I think it is also good politics for Obama as well, especially after the mini-fiasco on abortions service in the health bills.

    Parent

    I know nothing about Kalran. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    But I'm sure I'll know more than I want within days.

    Parent
    She's fantastic (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    You would love her I think.

    Parent
    Pam Karlan (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    Bart Stupak (none / 0) (#57)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:27:08 AM EST
    just announced he's not seeking reelection.

    Parent
    As in: Stupak for Supreme Court... (none / 0) (#60)
    by magster on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    ....tealeaves reading by you?

    You just made my stomach turn.

    Parent

    No, he's not SCOTUS material (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    Since the Stupak amendment to the health care act is so detrimental to women, it's good he's getting out. Otherwise he'd cause a repeat of Massachusetts causing liberal dems to skip the vote. At least by bowing out, we have a chance to get a more liberal candidate in there. He's too conservative for our side, yet the tea partiers are targeting him of voting for the bill.

    Conservatives will say this is an example of their newfound clout, but I think it's a signal that moderate elected Democrats should stop being so conservative.


    Parent

    No chance for a real liberal (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    from the UP, not one who would stand up as strongly as Dems need on many issues.

    But there is one pro-choice candidate.  Get behind her and settle for a pretty good liberal -- as the evidence of Stupak ought to suggest that he's a typical Dem there, so you can imagine what the Gooper Yoopers are like.

    Parent

    On BBC report on first baby boomers (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    eligible for Social Security benefits next year, one of the participants pointed out people used to live on average only one year after they started receiving Social Security benefits.

    Parent
    Did they make the connection with (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    Medicare?

    Parent
    No. The point was since the average (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:17:52 AM EST
    age of death has increased dramatically, we should all just work longer--productive lives, etc.

    Parent
    Boomers working into their seventies (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    would be really great for the unemployment rate. Not.

    Parent
    well, some of us will have no choice, (none / 0) (#124)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    winning the WSOP Main Event notwithstanding...

    What about the mention of Jennifer Granholm to the SC? I don't know enough about her to make a judgement. Is she a constitutional lawyer?

    Parent

    Another poster (none / 0) (#125)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    just noted (and wiki confirms) that she's a Catholic.

    Already 6 or so on the Ct as it is.  Obama likely won't want to go there.

    Parent

    That's about Granholm? thanks. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    did not know that.

    Parent
    I'm actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    curious how a lot of European nations will maintain their social safety nets with graying populations- I mean immigration would seem to be the answer but most Western European countries are far more restrictive than US on that issue.

    Parent
    Expansion of the EU has given people (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    from much poorer countries the ability to legally immigrate to better-off countries.  See Ireland.  Although many immigrants are now returning to their countries of origin with the economic downturn.

    Parent
    This is true (none / 0) (#130)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    but only for inter-EU migration- frankly, the Demographic bomb is one of the best reasons for streamlining Turkish admission- they have a young and growing population with relatively few job opportunities- perfect for serving as labor/tax base for some of the aging Western European nations.

    Parent
    Intra (none / 0) (#131)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    Intra-EU migration.

    Parent
    Seems Turkish people migrate with or (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    w/o EU  passports.  Germany, for example.

    Parent
    I am more interested in someone who (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    we know will uphold Roe v. Wade.

    Parent
    Kagan absolutely would imo (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:17:24 AM EST
    Sunstein would not imo.

    Garland would. Wood would.

    NOw on criminal procedure, I do not think Jeralyhn is going to like any of these choices.

    Parent

    Yes, Pam Karlan (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    would be great.  I wonder if Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of law at Stanford, will be among those considered?

    Parent
    Well, to the extent Roe still lives, (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    it does so by Anthony Kennedy's vote. It is impossible to imagine Obama appointing anyone to Kennedy's right on that issue.

    Parent
    Really? Impossible? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    We still haven't a clue what Sotomayor has to offer on that front; and I haven't seen a stalwart commitment from this White House on the issue of Choice.

    My guess is that being the "pragmatists" that they are, they are going to be looking to fill the position with this Administration's particular operational and political interests in mind and not so much the long-term interest of the country or the court.

    I just haven't seen a whole lot of passion for principle over political concerns out of this crowd.  Greg Craig comes to mind as an example of how principle can make you roadkill at 1600 Penn these days.

    Parent

    Whatever would (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    Conservatives fill the airwaves and their campaign coffers with if Roe was overturned?

    Parent
    They'd still have homophobia (none / 0) (#92)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    in their basket of tricks.

    Parent
    That's easy (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    "Socialism!"  

    Parent
    Overturning Roe (none / 0) (#119)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    would end the GOP as a major political party in the US within a decade- it'd hold out as a regional party in some states (though a dead blonde from a back alley abortion might push them down even in some Southern strongholds) but that's it.

    Parent
    I completely agree (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    The train is leaving the station on gay rights - and with many conservatives have openly gay members of their famies (or are being caught in gay liaisons), this is a non issue.  But as technology improves to see fetuses in 4D ultrasounds, and to stop miscarriages, etc., more and more people are becoming squishy on choice.  Making it illegal mow does not win Rs long term voters, but it does cut off s huge chunk of their financing - one flyer can bring in tons of money to a campaign.

    Parent
    from wiki (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    Long before the election of President Barack Obama, Kagan was the subject of repeated speculation that she might be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States if a Democratic president were elected in 2008.[15][16][17][18][19]  This speculation greatly increased on May 1, 2009, when Associate Justice David H. Souter announced his intention to retire from the court at the end of June 2009. It was speculated that her new position as Solicitor General could increase Kagan's already much discussed chances to be nominated, since solicitors general have often been considered potential nominees to the Supreme Court in the past. On May 13, 2009, the Associated Press reported that President Obama was considering Kagan, among others, for possible appointment to the United States Supreme Court.[20]  On May 26, 2009, however, President Obama announced that he was nominating Sonia Sotomayor to be the next United States Supreme Court Justice.[21]  In 2010, with rumors that John Paul Stevens could possibly retire in June, rumors have again begun to swirl around Kagan as a possible nominee to the bench.[22]


    Parent
    CNN just raised Janet Nepolitano's (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    name as possibly being on the short list.

    Parent
    Well, aside from what the left or (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    right want, what the SC needs is someone who can communicate and negotiate well enough to develop consensus and bridge the ever increasing divide on the court. Elena Kagan fits the bill in that area. Political polarization is most certainly going to increase in our nation; having a less divided court is essential to help mitigate our political divisions.


    PPUS on SCOTUS? No thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:16:14 AM EST
    Stevens (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    was pretty good at generating consensus and bridging the divide.  That's called being persuasive.

    Parent
    I think that there are competing (none / 0) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    definitions of being "persuasive" in DC these days.

    The more favored definition within the Democratic Party, at present, is someone who is basically a pushover because they lack core values and/or deeply held beliefs.

    The other, which seems to be out of style, is that a person not only has deeply held beliefs, but also has the ability to convince those around them that they are onto something to which others should attach themselves.

    The former means of concensus building I layed out, will generate at the very least confusing rulings and at worst will enable Roberts, Alito and Scalia's agenda, imo.

    Parent

    Building concensus is all well and (none / 0) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    good if you have parties who are all willing to engage in said concensus building.

    We have some tough ideologues on the other side.

    Parent

    Last I checked, the only (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    gettable Justice on the other side is Kennedy.  The others are rigid ideologues on 98% of the Ct issues.

    I think all the names being put out there -- Kagan, Karlan, Koh (the 3 Ks) -- are all temperamentally capable of at least working with a Kennedy.

    No lefty bomb throwers being considered.  No William Douglases or Thurgood Marshalls.  No surprise there.

    Parent

    I suspect that the next Justice (none / 0) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    confirmed will not be expected to play the role of being Kennedy's best buddy - if for no other reason than the others have more long-standing relationships with him - and the next justice will presumably have a career that surpasses Kennedy's tenure given his age.

    Parent
    It doesn't necessarily (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    mean a blatant buddying up and buttering up scenario, which Kennedy would be able to see through easily anyway.  

    A fresh Justice with clear ideas on legal questions who can articulate our side persuasively from a different perspective and appealing style could make the difference.  

    It's possible.  Sometimes a new person comes in and can shake things up, at least with a key J or two.  Perhaps he's still defensive over his crucial Bush v Gore vote, and might be more susceptible to a persuasive argument from our side as he contemplates how he wants to finish out his Ct career.

    Parent

    I am making the point that (none / 0) (#96)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    making Kennedy as priority in the decision-making process is is taking the short term view - and honestly - if it is such a great consideration, it should have been a priority on Sotomayor's round, not this one.

    The internal politics of SCOTUS are largely opaque.  Likely Stevens will have something to offer to the Administration if they want to listen, but this game of matching personalities possibly at the expense of getting a solid person onto the court, is dangerous, imo.

    Parent

    Uhmm, I think Karlan would be like (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    Douglas in more ways than one....

    Parent
    Maybe in ultimate legal (none / 0) (#121)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    outcome, but almost certainly not in judicial philosophy.  WD was very wide open to whatever got him to his preferred end point.  Karlan seems much more traditional or traditionally academic in notions of stare decisis and legal reasoning generally.

    Parent
    Well, Stevens didn't (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    handle his retirement completely flawlessly, but it was an improvement over the way Justices Marshall and Douglas and even Warren handled theirs.  

    If only Thurgood could have stuck to his stated intentions to "serve out his term."  No Uncle Thomas, and Bill Clinton would have named his replacement.

    Looks like Kagan is the frontrunner.  

    Forget Napolitano and Sunstein.  JN's star has dimmed somewhat since joining the O admin, and Sunstein is too conservative, too white and too male.

    While I'm not qualified (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by magster on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    I would be a reliable liberal vote, and with the right law clerk, could probably sound intelligent too.

    me too! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by CST on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    and I'm young and female!

    I could be there for a loooooong time.  Not so sure about that whole "generating consensus" thing though.  They may not take me seriously at first.  But hey, I'm a Libra, the whole judge thing is in my sign, that's gotta count for something...

    Parent

    Works for me. You win! (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    One dark horse (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    (probably without the right legal pedigree) is Congressman Patrick Murphy.

    Parent
    Larry Lessig... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by mike in dc on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    ...maybe not this time around, but his name should be in the mix...preferably before the next time Disney campaigns for its umpteenth copyright act extension.  

    Here's a question... (none / 0) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    Obviously, Stevens was opening the dialogue about his departure in public about a week ago or whenever that was now.  I thought it interesting that the said this year or next.  Was this an attempt to negotiate an appropriate replacement with the Administration?  Meaning, is is possible that he signaled he would do it sooner rather than later, if the Administration felt it could deliver a similarly "liberal" (or whatever criteria) replacement?

    Diane Wood is gutsy (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    and I still owe her for standing up for scapegoated state employee Georgia Thompson -- ad for slapping down the governor who cost Thompson her job, her home, and more.  Wood played a major role on the panel, so the word goes, that went overboard in ordering emergency release of Thompson the same day to at least attempt to give her back her reputation.  It was something to read of Thompson's lawyer, halfway home (many miles), getting a call on his cellphone of the historic order to the prison to release his client before nightfall.

    With the likes of Scalia, we need guts on the court.  I like a lot about Kagan and hope to hear hard evidence of similar incidents in her record?

    There are several quality (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    women possibilities, including Wood.  Major problem there is she's 60 yo.  Kagan and Karlan are about a decade younger.

    Parent
    So 60 is not the new 50 anymore? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    Well, that interlude was nice while it lasted. :-)

    Parent
    I had refrained (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    from repeating that concern about Wood because of a comeback like yours...

    Karlan is a spring chicken at 50--barely old enough to know what real life is like....

    Parent

    The more I hear of Kagan, (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    the less enthused I am....

    The order of preference:  Karlan, Wood, Kim Wardlaw....

    Karlan comes from the Pac-10--always a good selling point.....The West Coast has been dissed and we need a representative on the Court.

    Wardlaw is UCLA Bruin and a former Big Cheese in LA City politics....but will get reversed in the currently pending Quon case....She would be outstanding on women's issues and issues of personal liberty....Not afraid to take a stand and nows how to push the levers of power....could be like Earl Warren in that regard.

    Parent

    I might prefer (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    Karlan -- more consistently and overtly liberal, from what I see.  West Coaster -- I'm with you there.  Very smart.  Right youngish age, too.

    Much smarter on legal issues than Earl Warren.  EW went on the Ct for purely political (backroom deal) reasons, not for his great legal mind, which he didn't have.  

    Karlan is much more of an intellectual on legal issues than middle-brow pol Warren.  Though I liked the way EW for the most part managed his Ct through those politically turbulent years.

    Parent