EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: BURRITO SUPREME! court


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 252
Date:
BURRITO SUPREME! court


Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire later this year, according to two media reports a move that would offer President Barack Obama his first chance to shape the Supreme Court in his own image.

NPR and MSNBC both reported Souters retirement, with NPR saying he would step down at the end of the current term, but only after a successor had been chosen and confirmed. That could take until October.

White House officials did not immediately respond to questions about the retirement of Souter, 69, which became the subject of intense interest Thursday when the Associated Press reported that Souter, unlike other justices, had not hired law clerks for the coming session.

Asked about the reports of Souter's retirement plans, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said "The justice has no comment." Souter also had no comment on the report about the clerks.

Souter hails from the court's relatively liberal branch, so his retirement is unlikely to represent a deep shift in the balance of power among the Supremes and more a deepening and renewal of the left end of the bench.

But Obama will face competing imperatives, including the pressure to appoint the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court and his own ties to prominent legal academics beginning with his years at Harvard Law School.

During his campaign for the White House, Obama suggested he'd take personal considerations into account in selecting judges.

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007.

The top candidate, on paper, is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Clinton appointee to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She meets the empathy criteria, having grown up poor in the South Bronx, as well as Obama's preference for sterling credentials, having graduated from Yale Law School.

Others possible contenders include:

Elena Kagan, a former dean of Harvard Law School who is now Obamas solicitor general.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University who previously taught at Harvard and has argued several cases before the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts.

Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School. Obama nominated Koh to be legal adviser to the State Department.

Cass Sunstein, an Obama friend from the University of Chicago Law School and his nominee to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

NPR reported that Souter plans to retire to his native New Hampshire and has informed the White House of his decision. The Supreme Court will issue rulings and opinions until June.

Last month, a senior administration official involved in the nomination process signaled that the life experience of potential nominees would figure heavily in Obama's decisions about whom to propose for the highest court.

"The same principles apply in terms of looking for people with the highest professional competence and personal and professional excellence. We're looking for diversity again, not only just in gender and ethnicity, but also in experience in the law and in life," said the official, who asked not to be named. "The president has made clear that he's looking for judges, and I think this is true for justices, who have the ability or the experience to understand the plight of real people who are in the courts."

Souter's retirement has been the source of much speculation in his native New Hampshire. Many friends and associates in the small political and legal community there have believed his return home to be imminent.

One New Hampshire friend said Souter made it clear last summer when he was home in between sessions that if Obama won he wanted to be the first to retire.

Never married, Souter is thought to miss the quiet life in the tight-knit Granite State after nearly 19 years on the court in Washington.

A Harvard graduate and Rhodes Scholar, Souter served in private practice in Concord before serving as both state attorney general and as a state and federal judge. He was a little known figure in national legal circles before then-Senator Warren Rudman and Chief of Staff John Sununu urged President George H.W. Bush to appoint him to replace William J. Brennan.

Though closely aligned with New Hampshire's Republican establishment and initially feared by some Senate Democrats, Souter became a reliable vote on the court's liberal bloc. He has repeatedly voted to uphold abortion rights, drawing scorn from conservatives and becoming emblematic of what partisans on both sides see as the risk of appointing an largely unknown figure to the high court.

When the second President Bush sought to fill his first Supreme Court vacancy, "No More Souters' became a rallying cry on the right.

!Gogo Power discussion!



__________________

Jeremy


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 235
Date:

who cares?

__________________
Jaymie Parkkinen


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 169
Date:

agreeing with Jamie on this one

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Date:

I think there are LOTS of reasons to care...Supreme Court decisions typically last longer than any other type of policymaking, and are made by people who are isolated from the political process.  Supreme Court justices have their jobs for life.  For the last fifteen-twentyish years, the pattern has been for the Senators of the party other than the President's (i.e. Dem Senators under GOP Presidents and GOP Senators under Dem Presidents) to challenge and/or block more extree nominees to try and have a result that is relatively more moderate.  However, with the combination of Al Franken's legal victory and Arlen Specter's party switch, the Democrats are looking to have a filibuster-proof Senate, which could largely minimize the influence that GOP Senators are able to have in mitigating Obama's nominees.

And these nominations are ALWAYS politically contentious, particularly in cases like these where the Court is so evenly balanced between the two parties/liberal & conservative philosophy.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090501/pl_politico/21972  Although Obama is likely to appoint a liberal nominee to replace a liberal justice, if the conservatives can get someone they like, it could change the balance of the court....Souter himself is a great example of this - he was nominated by GHW Bush and called the "Stealth Candidate" because he had published very little (this was in response to GHWB's first choice, Bork, getting denied confirmation because of his extensive and controversial publications) and didn't have a long track record.  Given Souter's extensive GOP ties in his native New Hampshire, he was expected to be a conservative justice, and has instead voted consistently with the Court's liberal wing.

With so many incredibly controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple) so likely to come before the Supreme Court in the decades to come, who cares? you should!!! :)


__________________
Lego, Cav (the Lego brand name was derived from the Danish expression "leg godt" - play well - and lego also translates in Latin as "I study" or "I put together"...really, one of the world's most perfect words!)

 



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 140
Date:

ya it doesnt matter to me


__________________

I WISH I COULD BE ZOOEY DESCHANEL'S SLAVE



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 268
Date:

I absolutely care. However I think that it's ridiculous for everyone to speculate that he'll pick a lady.


But I really really hope he'll pick someone who's more conservative; it's definitely needed, especially in a time where the Democrats dominate more than half of congress.

__________________
Karen Lozano :]


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 235
Date:

MrsCavalluzzi wrote:

I think there are LOTS of reasons to care...Supreme Court decisions typically last longer than any other type of policymaking, and are made by people who are isolated from the political process.  Supreme Court justices have their jobs for life.  For the last fifteen-twentyish years, the pattern has been for the Senators of the party other than the President's (i.e. Dem Senators under GOP Presidents and GOP Senators under Dem Presidents) to challenge and/or block more extree nominees to try and have a result that is relatively more moderate.  However, with the combination of Al Franken's legal victory and Arlen Specter's party switch, the Democrats are looking to have a filibuster-proof Senate, which could largely minimize the influence that GOP Senators are able to have in mitigating Obama's nominees.

And these nominations are ALWAYS politically contentious, particularly in cases like these where the Court is so evenly balanced between the two parties/liberal & conservative philosophy.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090501/pl_politico/21972  Although Obama is likely to appoint a liberal nominee to replace a liberal justice, if the conservatives can get someone they like, it could change the balance of the court....Souter himself is a great example of this - he was nominated by GHW Bush and called the "Stealth Candidate" because he had published very little (this was in response to GHWB's first choice, Bork, getting denied confirmation because of his extensive and controversial publications) and didn't have a long track record.  Given Souter's extensive GOP ties in his native New Hampshire, he was expected to be a conservative justice, and has instead voted consistently with the Court's liberal wing.

With so many incredibly controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple) so likely to come before the Supreme Court in the decades to come, who cares? you should!!! :)



mrs. cav, i can see why some people would care, but none of these current issues effect me. gay marriage? no. immigration? no. abortion? no. the list goes on. the only thing that really does effect me are taxes and those go up and down all of the time and id rather pay than fight them. so case in point, it personally makes no difference to me whose but is sitting in the chair. as long as i have my happiness or my pursuit of it, thats all i want/need. i think people just get really caught up in a lot of this political frenzy. i try not to be one of them although i would like to see certain things happen. i dont have the follow through to see them inacted.

 



__________________
Jaymie Parkkinen


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 202
Date:

MrsCavalluzzi wrote:

I think there are LOTS of reasons to care...Supreme Court decisions typically last longer than any other type of policymaking, and are made by people who are isolated from the political process.  Supreme Court justices have their jobs for life.  For the last fifteen-twentyish years, the pattern has been for the Senators of the party other than the President's (i.e. Dem Senators under GOP Presidents and GOP Senators under Dem Presidents) to challenge and/or block more extree nominees to try and have a result that is relatively more moderate.  However, with the combination of Al Franken's legal victory and Arlen Specter's party switch, the Democrats are looking to have a filibuster-proof Senate, which could largely minimize the influence that GOP Senators are able to have in mitigating Obama's nominees.

And these nominations are ALWAYS politically contentious, particularly in cases like these where the Court is so evenly balanced between the two parties/liberal & conservative philosophy.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090501/pl_politico/21972  Although Obama is likely to appoint a liberal nominee to replace a liberal justice, if the conservatives can get someone they like, it could change the balance of the court....Souter himself is a great example of this - he was nominated by GHW Bush and called the "Stealth Candidate" because he had published very little (this was in response to GHWB's first choice, Bork, getting denied confirmation because of his extensive and controversial publications) and didn't have a long track record.  Given Souter's extensive GOP ties in his native New Hampshire, he was expected to be a conservative justice, and has instead voted consistently with the Court's liberal wing.

With so many incredibly controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple) so likely to come before the Supreme Court in the decades to come, who cares? you should!!! :)




 Hahahah right on!



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 278
Date:

It is extremely interesting that the Stealth Candidate wants to retire. H W's backfired appointee.  Its certain Obama will choose a liberal to help counter the 4 Republicans and its interesting he's only in the median for the ages of the other justices. I think there's a very high chance Obama will look towards a women candidate with Ruth Bader Ginsberg having pancreatic cancer and Bush not choosing a female to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. With Specter and Franken likely to be with the Democrats by the summer, it seems the Senate will be filibuster-proof.  It looks like whoever Obama nominates will likely receive the 2/3 vote to be approved.  This is extremely interesting for us AP Gov students after learning all about the power of the Senate (to confirm appointees, justices) and that the coattail affect has positvely affected the Democrats in all 3 branches. Who's the youngest of the candidates? I'm sure Obama will  try to select a younger candidate surely to be in power when I'm an older adult.

__________________
Go Magic! Beat La!


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 243
Date:

it doesnt seem that intresting to me so it really doesnt matter to me that much.

__________________
Bam


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 131
Date:

How is this benifitial to me?????????

__________________
By : DOMINIC


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date:

I find this pretty interesting.  Isn't it rare for a supreme court justice to retire?? However, I don't really have an opinion on who President Obama should pick.  But in all it's quite interesting to see who is picked, what everyone's reaction is going to be and what kinds of laws will come out of it.   

__________________
monica vellanoweth v(o_o)v 
"First you take the grahm.  You put the chocolate on the grahm. Then you roast a mallow.  When the mallows' flammin', you stick it on the chocolate.  Then you top with the other side."
- Ham: Sandlot


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 252
Date:

Bam wrote:

How is this benifitial to me?????????




 They decide important things, like how to spell beneficial.



__________________

Jeremy
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard