Stevens to retire?
posted at 10:12 am on September 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
John Paul Stevens has the longest tenure on the Supreme Court and is not coincidentally its oldest member at 89. Speculation arises every year about his potential retirement, but until now, Stevens has seemed indefatigable — or perhaps concerned about retiring with a more conservative President in place to nominate his replacement. However, Stevens no longer has that worry, and the small number of clerks he has hired this summer for the next session indicates that retirement will come soon:
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court’s liberals will retire next year.
If Stevens does step down, he would give President Barack Obama his second high court opening in two years. Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court when Justice David Souter announced his retirement in May.
Souter’s failure to hire clerks was the first signal that he was contemplating leaving the court.
A Stevens retirement would create a new round of the battle over nominees, but it would once again put Barack Obama on home turf. Stevens has been a reliable liberal vote, perhaps only slightly less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His retirement would give the possibility of a rebalancing of the court, and Obama will have to find someone as reliably liberal to prevent that outcome. He doesn’t have much room to gain with a new nomination, and would have to be satisfied with the status quo.
He’ll have to do better than Sonia Sotomayor, the qualified but rather unexceptional choice to replace the rather unexceptional David Souter. Stevens has been much more of a heavyweight on the court, and his absence will leave Stephen Breyer as the leading liberal intellect on the court. Two non-entities might make for warm bodies to fill liberal seats, but it will reflect poorly on Obama in the long term, and perhaps even in the short term. “Doing bette” may mean having to contend with more serious Republican opposition, especially after Obama’s polling has dropped through the floor in a very short span of weeks this summer.
Once again, though, the Republicans will have few options but to focus on the shortcomings of Obama’s nominee. Obama made that easy with Sotomayor, who got reversed and scolded by the court she joined in a high-profile case just before her confirmation hearings. Unless the White House vetting team remains comatose through the next nominee, the GOP won’t have that kind of softball to hit. Unless Obama nominates a moderate to replace Stevens — and his left flank will not stand for that — the GOP needs to do what it did on Sotomayor. Don’t get caught up in filibuster threats that they can’t deliver, but focus on the nominee’s record and show where it’s out of step with the American majority, if indeed it is.
But will Stevens retire, or is Mark Sherman of the AP getting ahead of himself? I suspect that Stevens might have retired earlier this year but for the surprise announcement from Souter. I’d expect him to make this his last term on the court. At Stevens’ age, he either retires soon or leaves another way, and I think most people would prefer to leave on their own terms.
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 Next »
Will Stevens retire?
Seems so.
Now, let’s see the best and brightest Obama has to offer. Holder, perhaps?
coldwarrior on September 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM
if so, this is Obama’s chance to nominate a ‘wise homosexual’ to the bench. if he doesn’t, that will be the biggest bi#%$ slap to the ‘gay mafia’ and the recriminations may be too much for his diminshed political capital to withstand.
gatorboy on September 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
That’s what I’m hoping they do, too. Focus on a minor footnote and gnaw on it so relentlessly that they paint themselves as freakish bigots and alienate a large a growing voter block.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Holder has bigger and better things planned.
Stevens, Ginsberg, and (takes deep breath) Scalia are all close to planning other things to do. The warnings were all sounded in ’08 but 54% of the public either didn’t care or didn’t know the difference between a justice of SCOTUS and Tony the Tiger.
Limerick on September 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Was he the gay one?
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
He can’t. He serves for the duration. No getting out be4 war is over. Case closed. He should know better.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
tsk tsk always so agressive, must be a liberal thing.
SHARPTOOTH on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Just think, thanks to the GOP’s lack of putting up a viable candidate for President we lost the oppotunity to nominate two SCOTUS justices and tipping the Court in our favor for a very long time. Thanks Independents!
Vigilante on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Replacing Stevens will be but another exercise in garbage out, garbage in.
TXUS on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
go for the throat this time…Barry’s at 45% and falling
sven10077 on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Yeah I can see it now Stevens retires and Barry chooses Michelle as his replacement.
Hellrider on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
He’ll be 74 in March. That does make a tad bit nervous.
Limerick on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
It will be hard to find anyone much further to the left than Stevens, and it will be near impossible to find someone hard liberal and having leadership abilities like Stevens. Especially with the incompetent vetting staff that Barry has. I anticipate disappointment on the left.
Vashta.Nerada on September 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM
A caffeine thing.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:25 AM
You know conservatives hate homesexuals, HIspanics and Blacks. I do not think this needs to be proven anymore than it has.
Fellow conservative, do we hate Asians too? I need to make sure I up with the program.
WashJeff on September 2, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Oh yippee, more identity politics at it’s finest.
Frankly, I hope Hillary comes out as aa lesbian and he nominates her. I’m starting to feel a little sorry for the old broad.
Btw, is this a topic AnnainCA is likely to be on? I don’t feel like being pissed off by stupidity all day today.
ORconservative on September 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Let’s face it. If Sotomayor is the best he could get at 60%, there is no way he will get anyone further left at 45%.
PappaMac on September 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
The GOP has a fantastic opportunity here that it did not have with Sotomayor: namely, the fact that the country is really starting to ask about the limits of government power. If Obama puts up a liberal who thinks that the Commerce Clause allows him to take emergency control over the internet, the Republicans can, if they choose, have a field day.
Stevens either retires before the 2010 elections and risks handing conservatives another talking point, or he retires afterward, when conservatives have more power.
Roxeanne de Luca on September 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I guess if he wants to appeal to snippy d-bag demographic he could nominate you then.
gsherin on September 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Stephens is sniffing the political winds. He knows he doesn’t have long to get himself replaced by a lefty POTUS and a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate.
I’m putting money on someone young (40s) and radical.
spmat on September 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Whose job is it to nudge Buzzy Ginsburg awake every time she falls asleep during proceedings? That must be an endless, tiring occupation.
Sotomayor? The illiterate gavel slammer who has a problem with white New Haven firemen? It figures her shills would be still trying a tired race card in hopes of hiding her incompetence. Much like pimping their fake messiah Obambi.
viking01 on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Bleh… Stevens, not Stephens.
spmat on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Is Bill Ayers a lawyer?
ORconservative on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Btw, is this a topic AnnainCA is likely to be on? I don’t feel like being pissed off by stupidity all day today.
ORconservative on September 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
ain’t that the truth.
SHARPTOOTH on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Supreme Court Justice Van Jones.
RedRedRice on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I thought a new session just started. Wouldn’t a retirement come at the end of one like Souter did?
Marcus on September 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM
RedRedRice on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
only if he wants Glenn’s head to explode.
gsherin on September 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM
SHARPTOOTH on September 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Unfortunately.
And I know you don’t have to be a lawyer to be on the SC. I could see that jerk nominating Bill Ayres.
ORconservative on September 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
… and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will go NLT next year, leaving THE ONE with 3 picks on SCOTUS in his term (hopefully his only term)… which is why elections matter SO, SO MUCH!!
Khun Joe on September 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Oh, great. Not only do you have to work harder, you’re going to get $hit canned.
Blake on September 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Hey, I’m not saying you hate anyone. But if you make one line about Hispanic pride — and I’m not saying it wasn’t a dumb thing to say — the centerpiece of a whiny and unsuccessful fight against a nomination, Hispanics and women are likely to find the argument a little offensive. So you shoot yourself in the foot and still lose. If they’d just said “she’s too liberal” and voted no, (like Imhofe) the result would have been the same and the damage less.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
ORconservative on September 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
yeah, seems like there’s no limit to oboobi’s ambition.
SHARPTOOTH on September 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM
If Stevens retires after the 2009-10 term is over he becomes a midterm election issue, whether or not Obama offers up a replacement in time to have hearings to beat the midterm elections. Then it will be interesting to see if Obama attempts to nominate a far left ideologue in order to try and re-energize his base, at the risk that something on his/her/its record will be so out there it will alienate Obama and Democrats in general even more from the swing voters than the health care debate already has.
jon1979 on September 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Or worse yet, Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.
Hellrider on September 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I’m guessing his pick may not even be an attorney. His pick of Sotomayor showed he wasn’t looking for a real high legal intellect. I’m guess a bold move on his part and going directly to a union goon to “break some knee caps” and keep the other judges in order.
Jeff from WI on September 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
the result would have been the same and the damage less.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
the left would use the latino excuse any how, the spin would have been put on the race card no matter what the gop did. that’s how radicals work .
SHARPTOOTH on September 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Dang, beat me to it. I guess that’s what I get for surfing the intertubes.
Cass Sunstein is a lawyer & law professor. That should be enough to make us nervous.
rbj on September 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Since Michelle doesn’t have any legal writings or other scholarly work to peruse, the WH and Senate would have to focus on her work and academic record to try and justify her nomination, and that could prove rather embarrassing to Michelle (to say the least).
AZCoyote on September 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I just want Kennedy to hang on; he’s the Justice that needs to stay for the next 3 years. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer; I’m not that concerned, since their replacements likely won’t change the balance of the court.
yogi41 on September 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I always thought Wilma was hotter, but whatever trips your trigger.
The Monster on September 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM
What damage? Obama is tanking in the polls, and the GOP just opened up its largest lead ever in the generic ballot. If this is damage, I’ll take it.
Missy on September 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM
You raise some good points. But I think a Stevens retirement in the next 14 months (and, more important, Obama’s response) is a campaign issue.
Given the languishing economy, the deficit, healthcare, cap-and-trade, and now Afghanistan, Obama can’t afford a radical appointment. It will affect 2010 and 2012–that’s two cycles of reps, two-thirds of the Senate, and his own re-election. I don’t expect a conservative, but I think a radical appointment will be playing Russian Roulette.
BuckeyeSam on September 2, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Good riddens, you imbecile. Enjoy senility – it won’t be much different from the rest of your adulthood.
Jaibones on September 2, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I know you were kidding but, he can’t she has been disbarred
xler8bmw on September 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Does it even register on you that the country is turning on Obama and the Democrats like a tidal wave? That snarky irrelevant comments are totally expose the left as unable to engage in civil debate? Freakish bigots? My god woman, take you Thorazine and get a grip.
GunRunner on September 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
BOLD PREDICTION:
Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee will be….black.
pseudonominus on September 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Now that he has his first priority in the Race-Gender Identity Politics Follies achieved with Sotomayor, he can concentrate hard on ideology. There is no particular downside for the conservatives, as Stevens was the worst judge on SCOTUS since Blackmun retired.
But make no mistake, we are going to see someone like Cass Sunstein – an ideological Marxist from the fringe left.
Jaibones on September 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Chief Justice Malik Zulu Shabazz
GunRunner on September 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Stevens should have been impeached and ousted, along with the rest of this incompetent SCOTUS for even entertaining their anti-Constitutional Boumediene habeas corpus ruling wherein they usurped Congress’s power to declare- or undeclare (in this instance)- War (or to define Invasion… was 9/11 not an “invasion”, since the Pentagon itself was hit for the first time in history?… ).
The Supreme Court does not have this power, ONLY Congress does, and somehow all of them (even those dissenting) went along with this illegal move by either NOT calling for the impeachment of their colleagues or NOT resigning in protest …if they really understood and fully grasped the significance of their OUTRAGEOUS un-Constitutional over-reach.
Losers, all.
profitsbeard on September 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Checkmate
Green Muse on September 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM
So questioning a lady who implies superiority of judgment because of her race makes the questioner a bigot, eh? That’s some rational thinking alrighty. How would liberals have reacted if she had said “a wise latina would make a better judgment than a gay tree-hugging black”?
Patrick S on September 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The woman was overturned by the Supreme Court numerous times — a clear demonstration that her opinions are shallow and spurious.
Richard Romano on September 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Polls change. And the Sotomayor debate was also about long-term constituency building, which the Republican’s helped the Democrats do. Thanks. I was surprised that Ed, or anyone, saw the Sotomayor confirmation as a blueprint for future success.
Also, I didn’t say that you were freakish bigots, I just said that certain Republican Senators and commentators came off that way.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM
More a desperation thing.
MarkTheGreat on September 2, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Questioning her was fine, taking one line and inflating it into a judicial philosophy with nothing to back it up, was a loser.
3000 decisions to back up your contention and you came up with nothing to back up your contention that she was a racist. In fact, of course, she ruled against many more employment discrimination plaintiffs than she ruled in favor of, implying a certain balance to her decisions. And don’t bring up Ricci because she was following precedent in that ruling, as she should have.
Bleeds Blue on September 2, 2009 at 11:04 AM
” his absence will leave Stephen Breyer as the leading liberal intellect on the court.”
Are you kidding?
You actually think the Moron cares about the intellectual underpinnings of his coup?
Right…..about as much as Lenin and Hitler did.
notagool on September 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM
If the Republicans over play their hand, Barry could see a big bounce.
MarkTheGreat on September 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Don’t worry, the gutless Republicans AKA(John McCain) will reach across the aisle to help dear Barry. Barry is too smart to appoint someone like the Republicans did-(Souter)
mobydutch on September 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The SCOTUS appointments was the one thing die hard conservatives seem to have forgotten about when they did the “i’m mad at Bush so I’m going to sit out the election” routine that cost McCain the presidency. Bush did so many things wrong, but he got the SCOTUS right, and now we have to deal with the possibility of a far left court. Don’t forget, Obama may very well win a second term in which case it is almost certain to change the balance of the court.
http://theblackcommenter.wordpress.com/
theblackcommenter on September 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Red alert—Call Lindsey Graham!!!!
mobydutch on September 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM
My biggest fear with the election of obama was the appointments to the SCOTUS. These are lifetime appointments and so very important to us and our children. God help us.
rjoco1 on September 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM
McCain wanted to attack Iran though, and he supported staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So even if it means Obama making everyone into slaves, I still think it’s best to vote third party at this point because was not a reasonable option.
Spathi on September 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
William Douglas served on the Court for 36 years, the longest serving Justice ever. Stevens is at 34 right now.
I’m sure he’ll want to retire one year short of holding that record, even though by all accounts he’s in perfect health, doesn’t seem like he’s lost speed off the ol’ mental fastball, and obviously loves the job.
Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
True, but my mother’s 76 and my mother-in-law is 83, and they both can still make my life miserable on a regular basis. So there’s hope for Scalia.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Great comment. And “imbecile” is an under-appreciated word imo, as is “cretin.” Used together, it has a certain je ne sais quoi.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Another argument for not messing with our health care?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 2, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
You do know, don’t you, that Douglas was in terrible shape and incontinent at the end. Thurgood Marshall used to complain about the smell.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Link re Douglas.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Didn’t know that, although it does seem like a nursing home.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM
There’s a fine line between having “Hispanic pride” and ruling against someone because they’re white. Oh wait… she did do that!
Of course, you could always try to explain her ruling away because she’s really biased against men, or that she feels that fire should have the freedom to spread without getting its feelings hurt by competent opposition.
dominigan on September 2, 2009 at 11:34 AM
LOL.
Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Justice Billy Jeff? (stop laughing)
Duh Won will not make it to the end of the year. But before he resigns, Biden will resign. Then Obumbles will appoint SoS Shrillary as VP because she earned it in the primaries and would be confirmed by a voice vote.
After he resigns as POTUS, she is sworn in and appoints her husband to SC.
This sets up the ONLY person who stands any chance at all against Sarah! in 2012. If Sarah runs against a male, virtually all the PUMAs vote for her and that’s the tipping point to victory.
Oh, almost forgot. It will be a medical resignation for both Biden and Duh Won. Privacy laws will prevent any proof one way or the other. (and y’all thought he was just on a vacation last week)
platypus on September 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM
“Spathi on September 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM”
u actually typed that [poorly written] rank stupidity, saw it right there in front of you on the screen, and yet still hit the “submit” button — fascinating …
Buckaroo on September 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM
“platypus on September 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM”
dude — switch to decaf — not.gonna.happen.
/and always remember — ~4 out of 5 “pumas” pulled the lever for zero when the chips were down last year!
Buckaroo on September 2, 2009 at 11:40 AM
If Stevens retires, I’m sticking with my original prediction for the Souter replacement.
Cass Sunstein.
JohnGalt23 on September 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Oh well, just send vitamins to the convervative justices. Not wishing ill on any future Supreme Court nominee, but Kennedy has been pretty healthy, and pretty liberal. And every new nominee brings a chance for a new balance of power.
hawksruleva on September 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM
theblackcommenter on September 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM
—-
No, not all of us forgot this.
Obama didn’t replace his failed vetters after repeated embarrassing nominees… why would we expect he’d replace ‘em now?
Mew
acat on September 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM
“JohnGalt23 on September 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM”
like him or hate him, i think beck may have torpedoed that one …
Buckaroo on September 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM
JohnGalt23 on September 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM
—–
Think that can get through the Senate after the 2010 elections?
Be interesting to make the dems use one or another of the nuclear options…
Mew
acat on September 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Compared to Ginsburg? SoSo? Like being the smartest person in the dunce class.
ChrisB on September 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Uh, 2008 was a race between two males. So “party” made a difference. When there are two females running, it’s about “female” issues.
“Having it all” has been a miserable failure under demon-craps. But Sarah! has proved it’s possible.
That will be the sympathetic tuning fork vibration that brings the girls to Sarah. Labels won’t matter when the walking proof takes to the campaign trail.
I do not think you understand just how deep the female psyche yearns for the freedom to do it all.
Buy popcorn – lots of it.
platypus on September 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM
They’ve been pretty much batting 1000 up to now. Can hardly wait for their next pick. Want to narrow it down to race?
GarandFan on September 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM
“I do not think you understand just how deep the female psyche yearns for the freedom to do it all.”
er, since I’m a guy I’ll spot ya that one, but i can also read polls — and I’m not seeing katy choice-uber-alles at the local naral clinic all of the sudden going “gosh, that mother of 5 speaks to me!”
/jus’ sayin’ …
Buckaroo on September 2, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Well,Stevens will retire, then die soon, then meet Ted in Hell for killing babies.
Jeff from WI on September 2, 2009 at 11:57 AM
There is no way that Repubicans will try to filibuster SCOTUS nominees. Nor, iMHO, should they.
First of all, unlike inferior court appointments, there is a Constitutional responsibility for Congress to oversee SCOTUS appointments. You can filibuster all other judges, and there is n’t a real threat to our Republic. Not so with SCOTUS justices.
Secondly, after all the caterwauling that came from the right about Dems threatening filibuster of Roberts/Alito appointments, it would look like the height of hypocrisy to do the same to someone who is undeniably qualified. And candidates for Senate, and POTUS btw, cannot afford the poison associated with that level of hypocrisy.
JohnGalt23 on September 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM
IF the GOP does not stand in TOTAL OPPOSITION to any nominee other than someone who is, at the very least, a true moderate, THEN, I’m going to wrap barbed wire around a baseball bat and give them a thrashing, politically speaking, of course.
madmonkphotog on September 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM
If they had anywhere near the power they used to have, you might have a point. But the medical imaging advances have killed (pun intended) the abortion theology.
I can see Hillary changing her position on abortion if it would advance her career opportunities. The religious right would be quietly supportive and that would legitimize her to independents (who generally dislike abortion).
Whether you’re with me or against me – buy popcorn.
platypus on September 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM
***
At 89 years old Justice Stevens may get retired by God. Not many people live into their 90′s.
***
As far as a replacement–President Obama (PBUH) and his filibuster proof Senate (counting RINO’s here) would approve the Messiah’s Portugese Water Retriever if he nominates it. And the dog would be a better choice than others The One might choose–Bill Clinton, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn, Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson could also be on his “fast track”. BOHICA is coming soon.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on September 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM
How is Billy Jeff on a par with Ayers? I’m not buying it.
platypus on September 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM
OK, here is the ultimate gag. Bamalamadingdong nominates himself seeking a life appointment (and cadillac health benefits) in view of his plunging approval and weakening odds of a second term.
We end up with Trader Joe as GoofUS and he chooses that Indian guy from the QuickyMart as ViceClerkUS.
In the morning… In the evening… Ain’t we got fun?
Texas Tom on September 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM
IMHO, John Paul Stevens was a disgrace to not only the court, but to the nation. Notably, he along with a few other SCOTUS judges should have been impeached for usurping the Constitution in Keloe vs. The City of New London. The courts role are to be guardians to the Constitution, that to insure, that government does not breach or stomp on us the people. In that case, that clearly wasn’t the case. Another tip off of why there was no outrage and a government setup, was the court docket show, that the USDOJ, and Solicitor General were neatly AWOL (no show) in this case, with ZERO filed pleadings. Resulting in a total government, and Constitutional sellout. The usual suspects played their parts to the hilt.
Expect Stevens to be replaced by another left-wing radical usurper.
byteshredder on September 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM
The next appointment is going to be Deval Patrick, Gov of Massachusetts, and uber Obama/Axelrod buddy.
Why? Because Patrick doesn’t have a prayer of being re-elected after he’s run MA into the ground. Plus, the first Black President will want to appoint the “first black” Supreme Court Justice; i.e. Clarence Thomas isn’t really “black” since we all know you can only be black if your Liberal.
mngirl on September 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I now regret starting this meme. But mucho kudos to you for surpassing me fair and square.
platypus on September 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Wrong way to look at it. What will happen is the stench from said garbage will continue on for another generation.
anuts on September 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Justice Marshall wasn’t black? That will come as a shock to his family.
MarkTheGreat on September 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Qualified? I guess you are buying into her status as a wise Latina also…
18-1 on September 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM
By the way Ed, this is just an absurd statement. Stevens is the smartest of the liberals on the Court, but Breyer is a Souter-esque nonentity. Ginsburg is the other heavyweight (although she looks like she weighs about 75 lbs!)
Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Well, if Obama were to find a black candidate we’d get at least one vote against him on the Democrat side. After all, Mr Byrd is very proud of his record of being the only senator to vote against the leftist Marshall and the conservative Thomas.
18-1 on September 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM
I would say her 17 years as a judge and 11 years on the 2nd Circuit make her about as qualified as a person can be to be a Justice. Just because she’s liberal doesn’t mean she’s not qualified, although just because someone’s qualified doesn’t mean that they should be on the Court (Bork, for example).
Proud Rino on September 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »