Souter to retire
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, April 30th, 2009 | PolicySupreme Court Justice David Souter will retire at the end of this court’s term says Nina Totenberg of NPR.
What’s the likelihood President Barack Obama appoints someone he thinks is liberal but turns out conservative?
Yeah…I thought not too.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
JR Hoeft
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
20 Responses to "Souter to retire"
Bush 41 really screwed the conservatives with this pick thanks to Warren Rudman. Now we will get a 45 year old person who will be on the court for 30 years.
Nothing to worry about. Mark Warner and Jim Webb promised us they’d be centrists, right?
Brian,
Didn’t the “Gang of 14″ (which included our own John Warner by the way) block the use of the nuclear option in the Senate but allow the approval of both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts?
Would it be wrong for a centrist to reason that since both of George W Bush’s nominated and approved justices, including the Chief Justice, were so conservative there might be room for a “liberal lion” or two to balance things out?
Obama’s a liberal? Has he said that?
I was not talking from Obama’s perspective, only from a moderates perspective in the Senate.
From a moderate’s perspective the most important seat right now is Kennedy’s. As long as Obama is replacing a liberal with a liberal, there is nothing earth shaking happening.
Obama did vote for the “nuclear option” voting against cloture on Alito, so I guess we can feel comfortable with Senators doing the same thing, right?
Brian,
I do not understand how you can claim Obama voted for the nuclear option. The nuclear option was coming from the Republican side. What prevented the nuclear option was the Gang of 14 which included an equal number of somewhat moderate members of the Senate from both parties (I think the equality was important to them) who respected the traditions of the Senate.
Obama might have voted for cloture, however he did not vote for the nuclear option. Two separate issues. The Democratic members of the Senate who were members of the Gang of 14 prevented the success of the cloture effort.
One obvious correction. Obama might have voted against cloture, not in favor of it. The cloture effort was successful preventing a filibuster.
Obama supported a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee. There’s no way you can say otherwise.
We should do to his nominee what he supported against Alito
It will be less difficult for Obama to obtain cloture then it was for Dubyah. Dubyah needed some Democrats without the nuclear option and Democrats might soon have all the votes they needs without the nuclear option or without the compromise of the Gang of 14.
Filibuster was not effective against Dubyah’s nominees and I would bet it is not going to be effective against Obama’s.
Jim, I know the right hates Souter but honestly he is a judicial centrist – the only reason he falls on the left of decisions most of the time has more to do with the judicial temperment of the Court as a conservative-oriented institution than it does with Justice Souter’s view.
Frankly, I think Souter is the finest most intellectually rigorous Justice on the Court. I will be sorry to see him go.
Obama is going to support a radical who is going to advance his agenda. I mean do we really think that the constitution is a “living document” or a Supreme court that applies “empathy” to court decisions??? Or should we find a justice that tries to follow the intent of the founders.
Specter leaving might be good because it will take 1 Republican vote to get out of committee, lets not give them this vote.
On a “living document”, I agree with Scalia. No one would’ve ever voted to ratify a constitution that would mean whatever 9 appointed people say it means from time to time.
Conservatives are every bit as activist as liberals – the only difference is perspective. It’s activist if you disagree with it, it’s strict constructionist if you agree.
For you conservatives – you won’t like this, but Scalia is one of the worst activist offenders – his opinions are riddled with “discoveries” of the Founder’s intent – which just so happen to coincide with his political beliefs.
Sorry chaps every Justice – right and left – does their best to channel the intent of the Founders and find the original intent of the Constitution.
Actually, Mark, you’d do well to actually research something before you issue proclamations.
Scalia is the first one to say he is not a “Strict constructionist.” He hates the term and doesn’t think it describes him at all.
He doesn’t look at the intent of the founders at all. He looks at what the society at large thought at the time. The 14th amendment wasn’t understood to mean “abortions are legal” until 100 years after it was written. Therefore, it’s quite obvious to understand that the democratic republic at the time didn’t intend that – or else, abortions would’ve been legal in the 1800s.
It’s quite easy.
“Cruel and unusual punishment” was not understood to mean “no death penalty” when the Constitution was ratified, or else death penalties would’ve been erased all over the nation upon its passage.
When it takes a 100 or 200 years to suddenly decide that a passage in the Constitution means something it never meant before, its quite simple to conclude what the “original intent” was.
And Scalia thinks that rather than invent new meanings for things in the Constitution, the amendment process should be used to add things to the document and be honest about the process. That way, the people’s representatives must vote rather than 5 of 9 appointed judges.
Mark obviously knows nothing about the law or Scalia. Scalia (like most good justices should) look to the tradition, history, and values of the constitution, the founders, and law in general to find the basis for his well written, thoughtful, humorous and correct opinions.
Yes BK Scalia is a textualist, very good you move to the head of the class. For non lawyers the distinction between original intent and original meaning is insignificant. Regardless, you missed (intentionally or not) my point. What I was getting at – and what Aaron obviously fails to understand – is that ALL Justices look to the very things Aaron cites. I don’t have issue with Scalia, he is a great intellectual mind. But don’t tell me he’s not an activist jurist. That simply comes down to perspective.
No, Mark. It comes down to your broadening the term “activist judges” to include any judge who has an opinion.
Your pendantic hairsplitting in attacking things with which you disagree and your blurring generalizations to smokescreen things with which you agree is evident every time you write.
It makes for mundane reading, and is no challenge to refute in debate, but on a Sunday morning it ranks up there with a Jumble puzzle as an entertaining diversion.
Wow, you continue to be a sad little man whose only recourse to that which he disagrees with is a knowledge-free angry tirade.
Mark, when did you confuse people’s laughter with anger? One too many trips to the men’s shower?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.