Bombshell: Souter retiring

posted at 10:25 pm on April 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

The rumors were swirling this afternoon and now NPR confirms. Farewell at last to Bush I’s worst mistake.

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court’s current term…

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.

I wonder if he saved this as some sort of “100 days” gift to The One or whether he waited until the Democrats were on the brink of a filibuster-proof majority, just to make extra sure the GOP was powerless to stop his replacement. Whichever it is, needless to say, we’re at Obama’s mercy. The pick will almost certainly be a woman — at 48, Elena Kagan is young and the frontrunner as Solicitor General although Sonia Sotomayor’s name has been kicked around too — but beyond that, the sky’s the limit. The only “good” news is that Souter was one of the most reliably liberal votes on the Court. Barry O would have to appoint an out-and-out socialist, practically, to tilt it further left.

Update: As noted in the comments, Specter is on the Judiciary Committee that will quiz Souter’s replacement. He voted no on Bork in 1987. Think he’ll have the stones to oppose this one if he/she’s too “radical” given that his reelection prospects are squarely in Obama’s hands?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

How many people want to bet that the media will proclaim Obama’s nominee to be “surprisingly centrist” no matter what?

JohnJ on April 30, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Problem is whether Graham [...] would be squish enough to be “bipartisan” and be that minority vote.

Wethal on April 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM

If he is, I’m sure we can find someone else to run for (and win) his seat in SC.

LastRick on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

I’m betting on Bill Ayers. Nothing says the justice has to be a lawyer or a judge.

After all Bambi has some payback to give for writing his first book for him.

CrazyFool on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Looking at BHO’s election, the Dem majorities, & this, I believe God is judging the USA. Punishing us by giving us what we lust for.

jgapinoy on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

It was very nice of the dipsh!t, Souter, to wait until a marxist was in the White House (one that Souter should have reviewed the eligibility of long ago) and the most insane Congress that the US has ever seen.

Souter is a slug.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Oh boy. This could be the start of three Supreme Court vacancies Obama gets to fill. That’s scary stuff.

SoulGlo on April 30, 2009 at 11:35 PM

I blame the sell-out repubicans for every single nightmare scenario that we face over the next 4 or 8 years.
NEVER FORGET. NEVER NEVER NEVER FORGET.

JeffinOrlando on April 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Settle down fellow liberty loving, Constitution loving real Americans.So far-zero sum.
With Souter all that will happen is TOTUS will replace one of them with another one of them.

Amendment X on April 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Actually, depending on who Obama nominates, this could be a really big deal.

True, Souter has been a pretty reliable vote for the left. But he is hardly an intellectual beacon on the court. That title belongs to Scalia (and maybe Roberts) on the right, and Ginsberg on the left.

Well, we all know Ginsberg is not long for the Court. Truth be told, when i first heard rumors about a SCOTUS retirement this afternoon, I was certain it was her. I still fully expect her to retire by the end of the year.

Which is why I disagree with AP on this one. I suspect Obama wants his first pick to be someone who is prepared to pick up the liberal/intellectual standard when Ginsberg retires. Kagan doesn’t have the depth or intellectual chops necessary to replace Ginsberg (or if she does, she hasn’t shown them yet). I don’t know as much about Sotomayer (sp?), but I understand a lot of her time has been spent on the bench, rather than publishing. Granted, she has already been through the confirmation process, but it’s not like the O is going to have much resistance in the Senate.

I’d be very happy to see him nominate a lightweight like Frau Pantsuit or Eric Holder. But I suspect you will see a real leftist thinker get the nod.

JohnGalt23 on April 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Looking at BHO’s election, the Dem majorities, & this, I believe God is judging the USA. Punishing us by giving us what we lust for.

jgapinoy on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

I wish you were wrong, but I think you might be right.

Upstater85 on April 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Wake me up when it’s all over. Four years from now … eight years from now … Assuming, of course, that we still exist then.

pbundy on May 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM

I blame the sell-out repubicans for every single nightmare scenario that we face over the next 4 or 8 years.

JeffinOrlando on April 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Funny. I blame one man… the leader of the GOP for the last eight years, the man responsible for leading my party to electoral oblivion. His name is George W. Bush, and his messianic vision of democratizing the world through force of arms made Barack Hussein Obama possible.

I hope the people of Iraq sleep well at night, because our national nightmare is the cost of their liberation.

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Game over, man! Game over!

Now the leftists will pwn all three branches of government. I’m looking forward to the concentration re-education camps!

stonemeister on May 1, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Just so long as none of the more conservative/Constitution constructionist justices retire we should be semi-ok.

Yakko77 on May 1, 2009 at 12:15 AM

The Presidency, the Congress and now the Supreme Court. America is lost.

Mason on May 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Agreed. It is Chimpy’s fault. But not because of the wars. It was his absolute failure to lead the party with conservative ideals. He let them act like democrats.

csdeven on May 1, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Funny. I blame one man… the leader of the GOP for the last eight years, the man responsible for leading my party to electoral oblivion. His name is George W. Bush, and his messianic vision of democratizing the world through force of arms made Barack Hussein Obama possible.

I hope the people of Iraq sleep well at night, because our national nightmare is the cost of their liberation.

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

I don’t disagree that W. should take his share of the blame. Messianic vision of democratizing the world? Uh, ok. The Iraq War mobilized the libs to the polls. McCain demobilized the conservative base by being, well, by being McCain. He sided with the left on too many things believing the press that set him up as the only republican that the left could love – and he was senile enough to believe it. He spoke negatively about his own party more than speaking well of it.
Moderates will never win nationally. On either side.

JeffinOrlando on May 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM

It will be some stupid liberal woman – the longer I live the more I understand why it took women so long to have the right to vote – just look at ALL the idiot women politicians we are blessed with. In my lifetime I can only think of two women politicians I was extremely impressed with, Golda Miere(spelling?)and Margaret Thatcher. Women are all about emotion and feelings – it is sickening!!!!

Cheryl from Texas on May 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Oh horseshit. That stuff really gets old. Why don’t you place the blame on the jerks who refused to vote for McCain for a change, or maybe toss a little blame his way? Because blaming Bush is “in”.

Well, not with me.

capitalist piglet on May 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Just got in from work and see this non-surprising headline.
It’ll be four before 2012. Hope y’all have your duct tape ready.

Limerick on May 1, 2009 at 12:41 AM

elections have consequences, sit back, light one up if you have one, and enjoy the GOP’s continuous demise and result of it’s inability to win in November ,,,

Monkei on May 1, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Safety Tip. If you are a Republican, it may not be wise to choose. A gay for judge. Especially one who is so unintelligible that he may be mentally ill.
Expectation. Obama will choose an America hating crazy, with cover from the press. I mean someone who really hates everything this country stands for and has a point of view similar to the Ku Klux Klan, but on the left.

pat on May 1, 2009 at 12:47 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Agreed. It is Chimpy’s fault. But not because of the wars. It was his absolute failure to lead the party with conservative ideals. He let them act like democrats.

csdeven on May 1, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Which seems incredibly hard to do as the GOP Senate and House voted lockstep with the Chimp, Cheney and Rove,

Monkei on May 1, 2009 at 12:47 AM

The Presidency, the Congress and now the Supreme Court. America is lost.

Mason on May 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Why not move to Teas and help along with the succession plans.

Monkei on May 1, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Who the hell cares how we got here, we are here. Now to go where is the question. And no, it won’t be to the State of Monkei.

Limerick on May 1, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Fwha…replacing a lefty with another lefty…it’s a wash.

29Victor on May 1, 2009 at 12:56 AM

If we’re going to lay blame, why not at least cast a little blame at people like George Soros, Peter Lewis, Harold Ickes, etc., who spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, lying to the American people in order to get their agenda enacted? Don’t they deserve at least a little blame?

JohnJ on May 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

It was very nice of the dipsh!t, Souter, to wait until a marxist was in the White House (one that Souter should have reviewed the eligibility of long ago) and the most insane Congress that the US has ever seen.
Souter is a slug.
progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 11:54 PM

He was planning this all along; he could’ve retired a couple of years ago. He was never going to retire under a Republican president. He’s a puke for sure. How in the world H.W. could’ve chosen him is beyond me. We could’ve had Edith Jones, but H.W. listened to that dipsh*t Warren Rudman.

IR-MN on May 1, 2009 at 1:01 AM

I shouldn’t even bother. GWB was never a problem. The MSM was and still is the problem. The Media and the Liberal left never left him alone until 9/11. Then about 3 Months later it started up again.

I really am surprised he won his second term (I voted for him). Almost no-one in Congress stood up for him in his first term, and almost no-one was left in his second term.

If Republicans had really pushed Conservative Ideals in the first four years, history would be different today. Blaming Bush for the obvious failings of congressional members doesn’t hack it with me. I was a lifelong Republican. Now I am a conservative independent. Sorry RNC. You will have to prove to me that you are not Democrat Lite.

marcboyd on May 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

If we’re going to lay blame, why not at least cast a little blame at people like George Soros, Peter Lewis, Harold Ickes, etc., who spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, lying to the American people in order to get their agenda enacted? Don’t they deserve at least a little blame?

JohnJ on May 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Why in the hell would we blame people for trying to (and succeeding, BTW) advance their own political agenda? Don’t we encourage those who back our political agenda to do the same?

That’s not laying blame… that’s whining.

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

Don’t they deserve at least a little blame?

JohnJ on May 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Yes they do… more than a little!

After Clinton, the GOP had no clear desire to elect a leader that would elucidate “first principles” and our constitution, they were only interested in winning elections.

The lazy GOP could not reap what they did not sow.

electric-rascal on May 1, 2009 at 1:12 AM

I shouldn’t even bother. GWB was never a problem. The MSM was and still is the problem. The Media and the Liberal left never left him alone until 9/11.
marcboyd on May 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

Wait a minute… are you saying 9/11 happened on W’s watch?

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM

JohnJ on May 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

You mention Harold Ickes….until a few weeks ago I didn’t know that his father (Harold Ickes Sr) was one of the key architects of the New Deal and also Chicago guy.

He served as Secretary of the Interior for thirteen years, from 1933 to 1946, the longest tenure of anyone to hold the office. Ickes was responsible for implementing much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal”

Ickes was a hard-nosed progressive. Funny thing about fruit and trees….

moxie_neanderthal on May 1, 2009 at 1:20 AM

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM

The jihadist cancer was allowed to metastasize under President Blue Dress.

moxie_neanderthal on May 1, 2009 at 1:24 AM

Now this is interesting. Specter could allow a nominee out of committee if Specter was a member of the Republican minority, but as part of the majority, he’s just another vote. Here are the other Republicans: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn.

The weak link is Lindsey Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14. If Graham says the course, the Republicans may not be able to stop runaway spending, military retrenchment, and an interrogation witch hunt. But Specter may have handed Republicans a gift.

And how fitting that Joe Biden arranged it all by convincing Specter to switch. Thanks, Joe. I’m sure your boss will appreciate your service as he ponders who he will nominate for the Supreme Court.

Let’s light up Graham’s phone when the time comes. He’s the weakest link by far.

SouthernGent on May 1, 2009 at 1:27 AM

JohnGalt23 on April 30, 2009 at 11:56 PM

I share your frustration. GW Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative. The problem occurred when liberal spending became attached with “conservative” or “right wing” nomenclature. When the left/right fiscal divide moved sharply to the left, a socialist candidate looks relatively moderate in the eyes of many.

moxie_neanderthal on May 1, 2009 at 1:37 AM

Game over, man! Game over!

stonemeister on May 1, 2009 at 12:11 AM

The game was over in November ’06 when the Republicans got their asses handed to them. This is just the victor claiming the spoils. Our only hope is that Americans wake up to what’s happening and the GOP comes back to conservative ideals.

Looking at BHO’s election, the Dem majorities, & this, I believe God is judging the USA. Punishing us by giving us what we lust for.

jgapinoy on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

I think you’re right. Americans wanted their own King Saul, and now the Philistines are licking their chops.

infidel4life on May 1, 2009 at 1:40 AM

capitalist piglet on May 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Blame McCain? How big of a role did McCain play in getting the right direction numbers in the single digits? How much of the deficit came in McCain pork for Arizona? McCain actually tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, he’s one of the few that actually tried to check the moral hazard that ripped our economy to shreds.
No Republican could have won. Not with a major economic collapse that was largely the Republicans fault, not with George W. Bush hanging over his head. John McCain was by far the best shot the Republicans had, and anyone who was seriously looking at the polls throughout knew it.
People were done with the Republicans long before the Presidential campaigns and before Bush started with the socialist bailout garbage. It was when they decided to corruptly back big business while doing whatever they could to placate the “conservative” populists. That’s a recipe for a party devoid of principle, and subsequently devoid of any intellectual foundation.

It wasn’t just Bush, it was Bush, Frist, Delay, Rove, and many others. It was the direction of the party and whoever put it in that direction. But McCain was one of the few in either party that actually tried to point us in a credible direction, I disagree with a lot of his ideology, but it’s about genuine principle, not populist principle.

galenrox on May 1, 2009 at 2:10 AM

The GOP loses it’s most liberal Senator, and the SCOTUS loses it’s most liberal member?

Best week evah?

Johnson on May 1, 2009 at 2:11 AM

What do you think the odds are of Republicans learning from the Democrats and “Bork” any and all nominees Obama brings up?

AaronGuzman on May 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Don’t forget that Souter was nominated for the court by a GOP President–Bush ’41.

Anyone still think that the GOP is still the party of freedom and not just a pale shadow of the Slavers?

iconoclast on May 1, 2009 at 2:24 AM

All I ever hear is “George Bush’s fault” for all the spending! Hello? What about Delay and Hastert and all the other Republican porkmeisters who were in Congress.

Speedwagon82 on May 1, 2009 at 3:00 AM

well, i waited thinking someone else
would get the ding ding ding…
this is my(un)educated my guess:

Human rights advocate named State Department’s top lawyer. Harold Hongju Koh, dean at the Yale Law School

he’s an internationalist; thinks the constitution is
a moving changeable disposable piece of paper.

you heard it first, right here.

falderal on May 1, 2009 at 3:11 AM

The odd thing about Specter jumping parties is that it gives the GOP a shot at blocking extreme judicial nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
`
The Committee rules are clear: if any member objects to bringing a nomination to a vote, a roll call vote of the Committee is taken. Ten votes are all that is needed to bring the vote, BUT at least one of those votes must be a minority member. Specter would likely have been that tenth vote on many liberal judges had he remained a Republican, but now the only prospective defector among Republicans is Lindsey “Gang o’ Fourteen” Graham, and his judicial philosophy has been one of his few strong suits.
`
We may not have the votes to filibuster these far-left nominees, but we may be able to prevent them getting to the floor, thanks to Specter!
`
Just imagine the media consternation, hand-wringing, wailing, and renting of garments if the Republicans block an Obama nominee in Committee: folks, I swear it’ll be worth a dollar a quart!
`

Adjoran on May 1, 2009 at 3:29 AM

I wonder if he saved this as some sort of “100 days” gift to The One or whether he waited until the Democrats were on the brink of a filibuster-proof majority, just to make extra sure the GOP was powerless to stop his replacement.

Gawd, the whole slew of them make it so obvious – Specter, Obama, Souter, etc.

Who needs conspiracy theories when they’re doing it all right before our eyes?

misslizzi on May 1, 2009 at 3:59 AM

falderal on May 1, 2009 at 3:11 AM

I will mark your words.

misslizzi on May 1, 2009 at 4:04 AM

Hold on a second….can The One nominate himself?!

misslizzi on May 1, 2009 at 4:14 AM

What do you think the odds are of Republicans learning from the Democrats and “Bork” any and all nominees Obama brings up?
AaronGuzman on May 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Someone needs to review his 8th grade Civics class.

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 4:18 AM

Problem is whether Graham [...] would be squish enough to be “bipartisan” and be that minority vote.

Wethal on April 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM
If he is, I’m sure we can find someone else to run for (and win) his seat in SC.

LastRick on April 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM

It would be too late, though. He’s not up until 2012 or 2016. The one minority vote here would be to allow any Obama nomination out of judiciary committee on a SCOTUS replacement for Souter, and that will most likely be this summer or fall.

Wethal on May 1, 2009 at 6:18 AM

What do you think the odds are of Republicans learning from the Democrats and “Bork” any and all nominees Obama brings up?
AaronGuzman on May 1, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Someone needs to review his 8th grade Civics class.

benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 4:18 AM

Do you remember what happened to Judge Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court? What does “civics class” have to do with the senate voting down a noiminee, which it has the power to do under the “advise and consent” clause in the Consitutition?

Wethal on May 1, 2009 at 6:21 AM

Sure, it’s a liberal pick and generally the same as we have now…but…it’s a young liberal pick. It will say a LOT about O’s ideology, though. Like we didn’t already know that…but…it will show us EXACTLY where he wants America to be. It will be both scary and instructive.

The problem is how YOUNG this one will be…the longevity factor is what we lament. But, our side is still going strong, God willing. GW did give us that.

Mommypundit on May 1, 2009 at 6:31 AM

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are great…but I had NO IDEA that Scalia was 73. YIKES.

uh….hang in there, man!!!!

Mommypundit on May 1, 2009 at 6:36 AM

I hope Obama goes out and out leftist, and appoints his BFF Bernardine Dohrn. Maybe then people would get the idea that The One is also a committed leftist.

Pope Linus on May 1, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Oh the Soros/”One world order” freaks have been planning this for a long time. It’s a perfect storm, man.

marklmail on May 1, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Does it really matter? I hate to to see Obama getting a shot at the Supreme Court, but my guess is whoever he puts in there will probably be the same kind of vote.

BTW, I hope all those people out there who thought there was no difference between John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama are happy with this development.

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 7:07 AM

Wethal:

The last time they tried to run someone against Graham it turned out the guy had ties to the KKK. If they want to beat him then they need to find someone who can actually win. This is not to say there isn’t anyone who can beat Graham, but one big reason he is still there is that the people of the state prefer him to anyone else who has run against him.

And we don’t know yet what he would do. What if the nominee is too liberal but very qualified? That makes it harder. I hope they are a pain in the ass about it myself, but I remember when the shoe was on the other foot conservatives wanted an up or down vote on a qualified nominee.

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 7:12 AM

BTW, I hope all those people out there who thought there was no difference between John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama are happy with this development.

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 7:07 AM

You’re absolutely correct. Elections matter. Democrats should never be responsible for appointing justices to the Supreme Court.

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 7:12 AM

Mark Sanford? I think he’s term-limited, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

BuckeyeSam on May 1, 2009 at 7:24 AM

2 reactions reading the headline:

1. A liberal for a liberal = nothing changes. Yeah I suppose Souter’s replacement could be more liberal. But so what? He/she will still get one vote that will always be for the liberal argument. Whether the vote comes from a far-left crazy or just a center left squishy lib, the result is the same.

2. Wouldn’t surprise me if Obama actually picks a moderate liberal like Souter. Unlikely I know, but I can just see him doing this and then for the next 3.5 years whenever someone accuses him of being a far-left loon his response (and his MSM defender response) will be how can you say that when he appointed XYZ to SCOTUS. And as I stated in #1, the result will still be the same, but Obama gets to play Mr. Centrist.

angryed on May 1, 2009 at 7:32 AM

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are great…but I had NO IDEA that Scalia was 73. YIKES.

uh….hang in there, man!!!!

Mommypundit on May 1, 2009 at 6:36 AM

Wow, I didn’t know he was that old either. Hmm, maybe HA should start sending him a box of vitamins every month.

angryed on May 1, 2009 at 7:35 AM

With Obama’s pattern of Socialism,there is
no doubt,that Hopey will be looking for an
extreme far Left SCOTUS to carry on,and continue
Hopeys ongong plans at,

the rebirth of America,that the Left can’t wait
to finish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on May 1, 2009 at 7:43 AM

how many voters really understand what the hell the SCOTUS is & how the justices are selected? and what they do?

the pro-life/pro-choice people are well aware of the Court, the guns rights activists are aware, politically astute people & lawyers are aware; but the avg. man on the street has absolutely no concept of what goes on there.

this issue won’t get any substantive play with the media other than bambi “delicious” president selected someone who is just the greatest.

kelley in virginia on May 1, 2009 at 7:44 AM

Hello Justice Ayers!!!!

lavell12 on May 1, 2009 at 7:50 AM

Oh for Pete’s sake!!!! Could it get any worse???! That was rhetorical, I know it could but really this sucks.

4shoes on May 1, 2009 at 7:50 AM

If this had happened earlier in the day this would have been item six of the worm turning post mainly because it will energize republicans.

The timing helps republicans energize, illustrates the importance of elections and put ND on the spot. More details on that here.

petertheslow on May 1, 2009 at 7:56 AM

Good entry on NRO on this appointment:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzhmZTkyN2YwYjhkODI3ZDAxOGQ2ZGE0ZTc1N2UwZDI=

BTW: are the justices of the SCOTUS provided Secret Service protection? If so, can we request doubling up the protection for Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy?

The more I think of it, Obama is likely assured of three appointments in this term–Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens.

Say your prayers that Kennedy doesn’t retire until a Republican is in office. I think he couldn’t care less who’s in office when he does so. Scalia will hold on until death before he retires.

BuckeyeSam on May 1, 2009 at 8:11 AM

This is what makes presidential elections so important. The SCOTUS has done more to destroy American culture and liberty than either of the other two branches of government.

pugwriter on May 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM

This will change nothing and this means nothing. The “change” comes when Kennedy retires.

vapig on May 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Do your homework.

JohnGalt23 on April 30, 2009 at 11:36 PM

I stand corrected.

Jaibones on May 1, 2009 at 8:23 AM

If The One is gonna put a legislate-from-the-bench liberal into the the SCOTUS, then we conservatives are duly obligated to at least kick the sh** out of them first.

Start digging for dirt and shouting it from the rooftops, folks.

bluelightbrigade on May 1, 2009 at 8:23 AM

And we don’t know yet what he would do. What if the nominee is too liberal but very qualified? That makes it harder. I hope they are a pain in the ass about it myself, but I remember when the shoe was on the other foot conservatives wanted an up or down vote on a qualified nominee.

Terrye on May 1, 2009 at 7:12 AM

That’s what I’m afraid of. When Clinton nominated judges, the GOP had the basic position that as long as the person was qualified, the president was entitle to choose his judges. The Dems never took such a principled position, either with Bork or Bush41 or Bush43.

I suspect there is at least one GOP squish on judiciary who can be swayed with the “as long as he/she is qualified,” argument, despite the fact the Dems were not willing to return the favor with GOP judges. That’s why the Gang of 14 did what it did. To try to get some qualified conservative judges to a floor vote.

And if one GOP squish on judiciary helps get the nomination to the floor, there are no doubt other GOP squished who will vote for cloture.

Wethal on May 1, 2009 at 8:23 AM

Funny. I blame one man… the leader of the GOP for the last eight years, the man responsible for leading my party to electoral oblivion. His name is George W. Bush, and his messianic vision of democratizing the world through force of arms made Barack Hussein Obama possible.

I hope the people of Iraq sleep well at night, because our national nightmare is the cost of their liberation.

JohnGalt23 on May 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM

A good post. I agree with just about everything except the part about Iraq. Their liberation did not further our enslavement. The lack of conservative leadership and the new tone did that. If Bush had been as single minded and focused on defending our freedoms from the enemies within our own congress as he had against those outside our borders, things would be a lot different now (amnesty aside).
Sometimes I wonder if it is not all just because of vanity and pride. You win elections, you go up the ladder and begin to be surrounded with the rich, powerful and famous. Then you look over your shoulder at where you came from, and the last thing you want to sound like is that hick neighbor that used to live down the street from you or that guy you knew behind the cash register. You’re “smarter” now. You’re one of the “powerful.” The “elite.”
Pride and vanity. Another road to hell.
I’m not twisted over this Souter thing. He was just a lib. The Republicans will have their day.

JellyToast on May 1, 2009 at 8:24 AM

Stevens might have to be carried out feet first. He is old, but going strong. He spends as much time as possible in FL, and can communicate by phone and email with the clerks.

Wethal on April 30, 2009 at 11:41 PM

He’s such a true believer that I think he wouldn’t risk another republican appointment. So, in 2011, if it starts to look bad for the donks, he’ll fall on his sword and retire.

Blake on May 1, 2009 at 8:31 AM

How much do you want to bet he appoints a Muslim?

Zetterson on April 30, 2009 at 11:05 PM

If that was to happen, I would start wearing more guns.

rat

riverrat10k on May 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM

One of these two seats (Souter or Ginsberg) is gonna go to either Billy Bubba or Hillary. I’m tellin’ ya.

I really thought he was inelligable due to losing his law license.

riverrat10k on May 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM

They already have a woman — they need to appoint a latino or maybe an asian or an American-Indian.

Blake on May 1, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Does anyone know what’s happening with those attempts to use eminent domain to take away Souter’s house and build some “Constitutional Resort” in its place? I hope they go after every piece of real estate this slug owns.

progressoverpeace on May 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM

I hope someone grills The Precedent’s nominee on the eligibility question and whether the US should be following the Constitution and what the Founders meant by ‘natural-born’ (whether that includes dual/multiple citizens – which it obviously doesn’t). This is the best chance to get this most legitimate issue aired before the public.

progressoverpeace on May 1, 2009 at 8:41 AM

We desperately need Antony Kennedy to hang on and have a conservative awakening.

jp on May 1, 2009 at 8:41 AM

Farewell at last to Bush I’s worst mistake.

Indeed. I can still remember walking the streets not far from the White House, and seeing the handbills posted everywhere about protests: “If Souter Is Appointed, Women Will Die.” And, as we might guess, millions of unborn women have since done precisely that.

manwithblackhat on May 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM

marcboyd on May 1, 2009 at 1:10 AM

Damned well said. And welcome to the CI club.

MikeA on May 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Won’t miss Souter at all, and don’t think his replacement could be much worse.

james23 on May 1, 2009 at 9:32 AM

I don’t think we have to wonder how Specter will view this nominee. He was always more hostile to conservative judges than liberal ones.

hawksruleva on May 1, 2009 at 9:36 AM

I don’t think we have to wonder how Specter will view this nominee. He was always more hostile to conservative judges than liberal ones.

hawksruleva on May 1, 2009 at 9:36 AM

That and he’ll want to impress his new friends by voting in favor of whatever left-of-center bastard the filthy liar nominates.

highhopes on May 1, 2009 at 9:44 AM

This was truly a Bush 41 disaster, but he’s a lib and will be replaced by a lib. Net loss = 0.

Jaibones on May 1, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Because of the court’s makeup, Souter was a liberal on this court, but his jurisprudence is more moderate than anything else. As I always use as an example, John Paul Stevens was a moderate on the Burger Court, but now he is arguably the most liberal judge on the court the last 10 years or so. Souter is far more conservative than Stevens, although not nearly as conservative as Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.

I think had Souter stayed on the court, and Anthony Kennedy retired, Souter could have been the “swing vote” on a new court, although it appears that Kennedy won’t be retiring for awhile.

I believe the court will become a bit more liberal, but usually, will not have much clout with Anthony Kennedy as the swing on this court.

On the Conservative side, the most likely retirees coming up would be Kennedy or Scalia, and I don’t think either will retire before 2012, although before the next Presidential election in 2016, I think there’s a strong possibility at least one of those two retires. And as others on this board have noted, that would change the ideology of the court, and someone like a Stephen Breyer could become the swing. Of course, Stevens will retire/die before then, and I’m sure Ginsburg will also retire before Kennedy and Scalia, and we need to see how liberal/moderate their replacements are.

asc85 on May 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Now I see why Specter voted for porkulus.

Vashta.Nerada on May 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Net loss = 0.

Jaibones on May 1, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Except for that whole erosion of individual freedoms thing that will continue with whatever left-of-center bastard the filthy liar nominates and the Senate rubber stamps.

Elections have consequences and this is one of the worst if you believe in the non-socialist view of America.

highhopes on May 1, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Oh boy. This could be the start of three Supreme Court vacancies Obama gets to fill. That’s scary stuff.

SoulGlo on April 30, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Unless he attempts to pull an FDR and expand the SCOTUS so that he gets more picks. Don’t think the filthy lying bastard wouldn’t attempt to do so if he believes he can get away with it.

highhopes on May 1, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Come on guys, Obama promised to choose centrist judges – people who would be post-partisan! And besides if he picked some liberal judge the media and the left would pillory him if he ‘went against the moderates’ and made the Democrat tent a little smaller…right? OH, I see, it’s only bad when Republicans go against the mythical moderate and when they make ‘political’ decisions.

Really, though, we saw this coming and expected it to happen and the ‘balance’ currently in the court will be maintained. The bigger question is if Stevens will retire during Obama’s presidency. Elections have consequences.

gwelf on May 1, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4