Comments on: Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » TNR: Sotomayor not brilliant, but certainly egotistical

Mon, 04 May 2009 20:10:46 +0000

[...] of a sudden emergency. If Sotomayor is the mediocrity that Rosen suggests, then remember that I predicted exactly that kind of appointment from the beginning, and bet [...]

By: Weekend Opinionator: Souter, Specter and the Future of the G.O.P. - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

Sat, 02 May 2009 20:20:18 +0000

[...] it to the always estimable Ed Morrissey to hold out hope. From Hot Air: Souter’s retirement comes unusually early for a Supreme Court justice. Most of [...]

By: HotAirExpert

HotAirExpert — Sat, 02 May 2009 04:36:59 +0000

Does anyone else think it’s wierd Obama wants to replace him with a guy named sodomizer?

By: THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ — Sat, 02 May 2009 03:58:51 +0000

The Party Of “No!” Gears Up To Just Say “No!” To Any Potential Suiters To Replace Retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter…

Behind The Scenes, Capitol Hill Republicans Burn Up The Phone Lines Reminding Each Other To Just Say “No!” No Matter Whom President Obama Decides To Appoint To Souter’s Soon-To-Be Vacant Supreme Court Of The United States Seat (……

By: 2006 Audio of Obama on Appointing Supreme Court Justices : Stop The ACLU

2006 Audio of Obama on Appointing Supreme Court Justices : Stop The ACLU — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:50:06 +0000

[...] Ed Morrissey: Based on Obama’s appointments thus far, expect a mediocre candidate that will be just middle enough to get a few Republicans on board. Don’t expect it to go quietly, but the Republicans probably won’t stage any extraordinary action to block it, unless something arises like tax problems or other issues that rise to incompetence or corruption. That’s actually the way presidential appointments should be handled, as elections have consequences. After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments. [...]

By: Rbastid

Rbastid — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:35:36 +0000

Obama picked someone to run the treasury who doesn’t pay taxes, someone to head the HHS who doesn’t see the health of babies as being of any value and our top foreign diplomat is someone who can’t remember the truth behind her past over seas trips.

I’m worried that Obama is going to pick a cop killer or Bill Ayers for the supreme court.

By: Outing Obama - Courting a Liberal « The Lioness

Outing Obama - Courting a Liberal « The Lioness — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:56:33 +0000

[...] Ed Morrissey sees this nomination as a big head ache for Obama, changing the make-up of the Court little, but obliging Obama to satisfy demands in an open air arena. He will face many competing pressures in selecting a replacement. Supreme Court picks are high-profile affairs, and this will test Obama far more than his previous appointments — many of which have been disasters, like Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and the rest of the tax-evaders and lobbyists he’s picked. Hispanics will want a representative voice on the court, and women will want to gain back the second seat that they lost with Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement. Blacks might expect Obama to appoint another African-American. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Obama will be expected by some to play the bitter partisan game that has existed ever since Ted Kennedy kneecapped Robert Bork, and expected by others to pick someone in the middle ground to end those games. The biggest tension will come from the far-Left activists of Obama’s party. They’re losing a stalwart. They can’t afford to have Souter replaced by a middle-ground justice who may not vote as reliably liberal as Souter. In fact, that will be Obama’s problem for all of the likely retirements on the Court — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. [...]

By: Outing Obama - Nominating a Liberal « The Lioness

Outing Obama - Nominating a Liberal « The Lioness — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:15:37 +0000

By: My Thoughts on Justice Souter Retiring | All American Blogger

My Thoughts on Justice Souter Retiring | All American Blogger — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:18:19 +0000

[...] It is true that there probably won’t be much of a change, but there could have been. As Ed Morrissey writes, “had we fielded a Republican candidate who could have beaten Obama (assuming anyone [...]

By: crr6

crr6 — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:35:57 +0000

But, you seem to prefer a nation of men, not laws.
progressoverpeace on May 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Where is that in the Constitution? : )

By: benny shakar

benny shakar — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:00:06 +0000

If Obama nominated Wanda Sykes, he could satisfy at least three liberal fantasies. Make that four with the entertainment value she’d bring to the bench. perroviejo on May 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Bonus: she'd be smarter than Clarence Thomas.

By: Always To The Right

Always To The Right — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:54:38 +0000

Playing On Home Turf…

Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama

Based on Obama’s appointments thus far, expect a mediocre candidate
that will be just middle enough to get a few Republicans on board.
Don’t expect it to go quietly,……

By: chemman

chemman — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:47:46 +0000

Why would we expect even a token resistance by republicans. When is comes to SCOTUS appointments Dimos bring a claymore to the gunfight while pubs bring a feather.

By: DDT

DDT — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:41:35 +0000

While Souter is relatively young to retire, Obama will appiont someone much younger,so we will have at least one liberal on the bench for a much longer time.Given Justice Stephen’s age ,and probable retirement within Obama’s term,the libs are all but guarranteed a majority on the Supreme Court for a very long time.

By: Souter’s Gone. Let the Democratic Carnage Begin! : The Sundries Shack

Souter’s Gone. Let the Democratic Carnage Begin! : The Sundries Shack — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:25:30 +0000

[...] The big news today is the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who I prefer to think of as The Man Who Should Have Been Bork. There will be much speculation about who President Obama will name to replace him (Michelle Malkin has a solid opening list) and what Republicans should do about it (early returns leans toward digging in only on the very worst nominee to lay back and wait for the President to step into a chuckhole). [...]

By: HoosierAccess » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Justice Souter’s Retirement to Test Indiana’s Most Famous Invertebrate

Fri, 01 May 2009 17:01:59 +0000

[...] the announcement of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter yesterday, Evan Bayh will have to find [...]

By: Goldenavatar

Goldenavatar — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:25:19 +0000

Obama can’t even staff his cabinet. Why would we expect him to be able to staff the supreme court? I expect a circus of epic proportions with his attempts to fill this vacancy.

By: Souter will scooter…(round-up) | The Anchoress

Souter will scooter…(round-up) | The Anchoress — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:54:44 +0000

[...] Morrissey: High Risk, Moderate Reward. I disagree about the risk to Obama. To the nation? ‘Nother [...]

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:47:37 +0000

thuja on May 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM

BTW, I agree with many of your posts, but I think the gay marriage issue has pushed you way over the edge on what a system of law is all about.

By: njcommuter

njcommuter — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:34:55 +0000

Can we get that Constitutional Convention rolling now?

By: MarkTheGreat

MarkTheGreat — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:26:41 +0000

you mean that there are many different theories regarding how to find things in the constitution that clearly aren’t there.

There are a few sections that are open to interpretation, such as the cruel and unusual clause.
Other sections are crystal clear and not open to interpretation, such as congress shall make no law.

By: peacenprosperity

peacenprosperity — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:22:21 +0000

Someone had better grill The Precedent’s nominee on the eligibility question and whether the US ought to follow the Constitution

The republicans will be too busy trying to destroy Pat Tommey’s chance to win in pennsylvania, they will kiss the ass of anyone barry nominates.

By: peacenprosperity

peacenprosperity — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:20:34 +0000

After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue.

What are you high? This is the youngest, healthiest one getting ready to go. Ginsburg and Stevens will be gone very soon and there are rumors of health problems with Kennedy. When the dust settles there will no longer be a republic.

By: Loxodonta

Loxodonta — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:09:15 +0000

Ed, thanks for this update. The Court is going to go further to the left. I pray the conservatives there can hold out until Republicans can retake the Senate and the White House, or a liberal Supreme Court will be rewriting the Constitution in their image for a couple of decades. Gird your loins, yes. But let us find a way to win more conservative Senators in 2010. We need them.

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:04:50 +0000

There is a good bit of diversity in America on how to interpret the Constitution. If one imagines that the law will always deliver a correct answer like the solution to a problem in a freshman physics book, then there is no need to reflect America.

That’s not how it works. It doesn’t matter if “the law will always deliver a correct answer” – it is the job of the legislators to change bad law. The purpose of the Court is to establish whether current law is satisfied or not. You have a very strange idea about what law is and what it is for.

I don’t buy that model of interpretation of either the Constitution or the Bible, though I’d readily admit that it makes much sense with the Constitution than the Bible.

Not everything right is Constitutional and not everything Constitutional is right. The SCOTUS is supposed to decide what is Constitutional, not what is “right”. Why is this so difficult to understand? But, you seem to prefer a nation of men, not laws.

Since I do think there are valid competing interpretations of the Constitution, I hold that the Supreme Court justices shouldn’t all come from the same viewpoint. It’s a bad thing when a single party makes all the rules.

thuja on May 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM

They should all adhere to the Constitution. This is not a question of interpretation (though you try to slide that in). You gave away your cluelessness (or disingenuousness) by first detailing that “If one imagines that the law will always deliver a correct answer”, which is as incorrect about the concept of law as one can get.