Now they can retire
From what I've been reading and hearing, as President, Barack Obama will appoint successors to three U.S. Supreme Court justices: Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. And who knows? Maybe others.
Yoo hoo! B.! I'm available!
| Posted at 10:42 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (37)
Why don't we hold off a couple months on the resignations?
Posted by Allan L. | November 6, 2008 11:49 AM
They will. But there's no way any Bush appointments are going anywhere...
Posted by Jack Bog | November 6, 2008 11:50 AM
And replacing these aging liberal dinosaurs with new liberal dinosaurs changes the court how exactly?
Posted by LexusLibertarian | November 6, 2008 12:02 PM
"how exactly?" By bringing intellect, compassion and observance of the constitution, for starters.
Jack, you would be a great choice in my book.
Posted by KISS | November 6, 2008 12:10 PM
Souter -- liberal dinosaur? C'mon -- He was appointed by G.H.W. Bush, and back in his New Hampshire days he was good buddies with Warren Rudman and John Sununu. The fact that he doesn't vote consistently with the reactionaries on the Court does not make him a dinosaur or a liberal.
Posted by cw moss | November 6, 2008 12:20 PM
How about Oregon's own 9th Curcuit Judge Susan Graber Jack?
Posted by Don | November 6, 2008 12:59 PM
Due to age issues, it is almost a forgone conclusion that these three will resign, and probably soon.
The real question is when will Kennedy resign?
Posted by hilsy | November 6, 2008 12:59 PM
This is where the Con. law professorial experience will shine for Barrack. His appointees will be top notch, brilliant, scholarly types, but without an agenda unlike the Bush appointees. A strong tax law background might be more useful within the administration.
Posted by genop | November 6, 2008 1:26 PM
Hillary.
I'm serious.
Posted by Chris Snethen | November 6, 2008 1:51 PM
"Hillary.
I'm serious."
That would be worth it just to see Sean Hannity eat his own liver on national TV.
Posted by Not that "Steve" | November 6, 2008 1:56 PM
Hillary? I like that! :-)
I do hope some of the conservative dinosaurs will retire within the next eight years as well, so Obama can shift the balance of the court back to a liberal mainstream.
Posted by Lev | November 6, 2008 2:23 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to see some of the younger conservative dinosaurs move on? Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas come to mind . . . .
Posted by Allan L. | November 6, 2008 2:58 PM
At 61 or so, this guy may be a little long in the tooth for a nomination, but Walter Dellinger (former Solicitor General, now teaching at Duke Law School) would be an excellent choice.
Pres. Obama should let Hillary continue to build her own legacy in the Senate and doesn't need the firestorm that would result from her nomination hearings, even if they are held in a Democrat-controlled forum.
Posted by Scott | November 6, 2008 3:41 PM
Oops - mistyped - Mr. Dellinger is 67 or so, not 61. This could give him a good 10-15 years on the bench easily, but I'd bet Pres. Obama wants to leave a longer legacy.
Posted by Scott | November 6, 2008 3:45 PM
"And replacing these aging liberal dinosaurs with new liberal dinosaurs changes the court how exactly?"
The new liberal dinosaurs will last longer. :-)
Posted by Alan DeWitt | November 6, 2008 4:07 PM
These appointments are one of the lasting influences a president. I'm torn between wanting Obama to pick qualified, thoughtful jurists and wanting a selection of rabidly liberal ideologues to counter some previous appointments.
Posted by Chris Coyle | November 6, 2008 4:34 PM
Justice HILLARY?
Wasn't Bush chastized for nominating Harriet Miers because she'd never sat on the bench?
Posted by Mister Tee | November 6, 2008 5:10 PM
"liberal mainstream..."
Heh, heh!
Posted by Mister Tee | November 6, 2008 5:11 PM
Justice Bogdanski? Dream on.
Posted by Mike (the other one) | November 6, 2008 5:17 PM
Oops, hit the space bar too soon ... Why would you want to give up your day job and blog? Or would they let you type to the web behind the bench during oral arguments?
Posted by Mike (the other one) | November 6, 2008 5:18 PM
Wasn't Bush chastized for nominating Harriet Miers because she'd never sat on the bench?
Not exactly, Mr. T. There have been any number of Justices, including some of the more distinguished ones, without prior judicial experience. Miers was objected to because her qualifications in all respects were -- to put it mildly -- so modest.
Posted by Allan L. | November 6, 2008 5:27 PM
Justice Bogdanski? Dream on.
Not a dream, my friend!
Posted by Jack Bog | November 6, 2008 5:58 PM
Was that your Dad, Jack?
I think you'd make a fine justice: I have no doubt you could subjugate your personal views in deference to the law. But with all the epinions to use against you, I think the R's would have a field day.
Posted by Mister Tee | November 6, 2008 6:09 PM
Justice B. was not my relative. Bogdanski is actually a somewhat common name in Poland.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 6, 2008 6:48 PM
Amidst the talk about lack of prior experience, someone recently pointed out that of the nine who signed the unanimous opinion in Brown v Bd of Ed, only one had been a judge prior to appointment as a Justice.
I had my differences with Lady Day, may she burn in hell for eternity while having to listen to Scalia talk about what a t*** she was for joining in the judicial coup that was Bush v Gore (after being quite publicly partisan about what a terrible thing it was when Florida was called for Gore) but with her legislative experience she did bring a welcome sense of the real world to that otherwise hermetically sealed world.
Posted by George Seldes | November 6, 2008 7:29 PM
Ms. O'Connor is alleged to feel remorse over the Bush v Gore decision. I think that's slightly to her credit if it is so.
Posted by Allan L. | November 6, 2008 8:33 PM
Both Kennedy and Scalia are 72, which is young for the Supremes. They could easily hang on for another eight years. I'm sure Scalia will, since he's on a mission. Kennedy may decide to retire.
Hillary, however, might make Scalia want to retire. This is exactly the right place for a liberal ballbuster.
Posted by Gil Johnson | November 6, 2008 10:28 PM
I saw Justice Kennedy up close and in person recently; he seems a lot younger than 72 and in no mood to retire.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 6, 2008 11:04 PM
Imagine if the old foot soldier made it to 1600 Penn Ave and had the ear of Sarah Palin? Oh my gosh! The voters never hear much on the issue of how important the Pres pick is when it comes to appointing judges on the big bench. It is EVERYTHING. Finally someone with common sense (after 8 long years of the IDIOT)
Posted by realdon | November 6, 2008 11:07 PM
The new liberal dinosaurs will last longer. :-)
I'm not so sure with Stevens - he looks pretty good. I understand that his older brother is still practicing law as well.
Posted by john rettig | November 7, 2008 1:18 AM
Throw your name in at change.gov.
Posted by Chris Coyle | November 7, 2008 8:23 AM
Hardy Myers, a shoo-in.
Posted by Bark Munster | November 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Actually, the next federal judges from Oregon will be decided by Wyden and Merkley.
And I assume Karen Immergut's days as U.S. attorney are numbered.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 7, 2008 2:08 PM
Actually, the next federal judges from Oregon will be decided by Wyden and Merkley.
Yes and no. It is the President who gets the final say. Bush always wanted the Senator(s) to give him at least three names.
Remember when Gordon Smith tried to just send Ray Baum, but he didn't pass ideological muster with the Administration? Michael Mossman ended up getting the nod, but he was one of three names sent back.
It's not clear yet how the Obama Administration will handle it, but there will be two vacancies to fill in Oregon.
Posted by Jack Roberts | November 7, 2008 4:30 PM
Yes and no. It is the President who gets the final say.
Yes. But the senators can veto anyone, and I doubt that they and the administration will differ very often. You see, the Democratic Party actually has its act together now.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 7, 2008 6:53 PM
the Democratic Party actually has its act together now
Famous last words. How I hope that you're right!
Posted by Allan L. | November 8, 2008 7:46 AM
So we can expect more judges who believe the Constitution is a living document and should be considered along with international law? How about judges who actually force the Federal Government to actually perform within the bounds of the Constitution.
Posted by John Hall | December 5, 2008 10:42 AM