http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/
The above link takes you to an article from February of this year, predicting whom President Obama might nominate to replace Justice Stevens if he does in fact retire. In the very first paragraph, where it talks about "media reports" and "blog posts," these are actually links to other articles. First and foremost please read the article, but I'd also encourage you to click on the "media reports" link, as there is a good 3-minute video which also looks at possible picks for an as-yet-nonexistent Supreme Court vacancy.
Based on your reading of the above article, your listening to the Toobin NPR interview, and/or your watching of that short video, please address the following questions:
- What stood out to you from these resources? What struck you the most when it came to Justice Stevens himself or what his possible retirement might mean for the Supreme Court?
- Do you think Justice Stevens will retire this year? What about Justice Ginsburg? Why/why not? Any thoughts on whom President Obama might select to replace them?
- Any other thoughts about the radio interview, the article, or the video?
Remember, each of you should make TWO (2) separate comments, preferably one about the interview or article itself, and another which responds to something posted by a classmate. Please try to have this second comment be something more than simply, "I agree/disagree with ___________." If possible, talk a little more about your own opinions/reactions and WHY you agree or disagree.
Remember also, please post your comments as part of the comment thread with this particular post; just "add a comment" and don't "publish a new post."
These two comments are due the same day as our Judicial Branch quiz, the last day before we go on Spring Break: Thursday, April 1st.
I thought that it was rude of everyone to just assume that Justice Stevens is going to retire. Just because he didn't appoint four clerks doesn't mean anything. I understand that he is old but once again that doesn't mean anything.
ReplyDeleteIf he does retire it could have a big impact on the court. In the first video it said that he was appointed by the Republican President Ford but ended up voting towards the more liberal side in the nineties. This shows that no matter who you are you can change your mind, even if you're a Supreme Court Justice. So what happens if President Obama chooses a person who seems liberal but turns conservative later on. Well that could end up being problematic. What goes along with every Supreme Court nomination is their ability to actully vote the direction the President was expecting and if they even end up agreeing on problems.
Both Justices might retire or they might not. It's truly whatever they want. Any Justice could retire whenever they wanted. So they'll do what they want to. If either does retire I think President Obama will probably find a younger person who has plenty of experience and who he will expect to vote towards the more liberal side of things. Maybe Jennifer Granholm because she would bring exactly what the court lost when Justice O'Connor retired.
I agree with Sidney in that we shouldn't assume that Justice Stevens,who is 89, and Justice Ginsburg, 76,will retire just because one hadn't hired a full complement of clerks for next term and the other just undergone surgery.It takes time and extreme thoughts on what clerks to choose and Stevens just looks happy with his job so i doubt he would retire. It had been said that Ginsburg has an interest in serving for more years to come. So we can scratch her off the list.
ReplyDeleteFor two justices to be soon "retired" at the same time will cause so much trouble. If it takes so long and so much work to elect the perfect justice for the people, the democrats and republicans, then it will take twice as much and could potentially cause chaos in our nation.
~michelle roman
I believe that president Obama shoul pick the most conservative or less liberal justices to have some of that mixture of political parties in our government. By doing this, it would increase Obama's approval rating and make republicans very happy. Sure the democrats would get mad for this decision but we shouldn't be controlled by a complete Democratic, Liberal government. I believe a great candidate for that could replace one of the justices is Diane Wood, who is less liberal.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview Toobin states that he had met with Justice Stevens and ask him if he was retireing. Stevens didnt exactly say he was going to retire. The interview also states that his retirement will change dynamics in the supreme court. I dont exaclty what that means but maybe it has to do with the fact that Stevens stated that since he has been in the Supreme Court, he hasnt changed but the court has changed. Also in the interview it was stated that if he does retire, now would be the best time because Obama is president and theres more of a chance that a liberal would be appointed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article i do think that Justice Stevens will be retireing not only because of his age (90) but because he hasnt made any movement to higher clerks which he would have done if he was going to remain on the Supreme Court. Now i dont think that Justice Ginsburg is going to retire. She hasnt said anything or made any sign of beginning to step down like Justice Stevens has. But in the article it was stated that president Obama has Wood in mind for a replacement for Justice Stevens. I did notice that this retirement is going to be difficult and that both parties are going to want one of there own to represent in the Supreme Court.
I agree with Sydney on the fact that no matter who Obama picks to replace Justice Stevens, they could end up voting in favor of either their party or the one opposite their party. This isnt a bad thing though because if they go into the position one thing and vote the other way it doesnt mean they will completly change their views.. they will most likely still have liberal or conservative views. They could be considered a swing vote, if there was some type of tie.
ReplyDeleteI thought both the audio clip and article were quite interesting, and even overwhelming. I was particularly interested to learn about the evolution of the court from the time when a justice is appointed to the time when that justice leaves the court. I think Justice Stevens was correct in saying that it is not his ideals that are changing, but rather the entire Supreme Court iteself. The politics that occur behind the scenes seem to greatly dictate not necessarily the way a justice interprets the constitution, but how he/she uses that interpretation when approaching an issue he/she must vote on. I think persuasion has become even more important and necessary recently due to , as Toobin said, the "polarization of the court". There are four conservative justices, four liberal justices, and one justice associated with neither side, Kennedy, who at times, would vote with Stevens. With Stevens possibly retiring, I think the balance of the court will be thrown off and Kennedy's vote will be essentially up for grabs in every case. Although I find it difficult to predict who President Obama will choose to replace Stevens if he does in fact retire, I think he will choose someone with a talent for persuasion sensitive to Kennedy's voting tendencies.
ReplyDeleteI also found this comment from the article interesting:
"The fact that the nation’s attention will shift so quickly to speculation about his successor, rather than an appreciation of him, is unfortunate."
I agree with this comment. It is disappointing that instead of honoring Stevens for all he has brought to the Supreme Court, the entire nation is already focused on political motives regarding the next appointee to the court. Unfortunately, it seems his accomplishments will be completely overshadowed by the politics of his retirement.
I agree that Justice Stevens is most likely going to retire at the end of this term because he “the signals he has sent are unchanged and grow more significant as they accumulate and as time passes,” meaning that he is not hiring additional clerks and is preparing to leave the Supreme Court bench in the near future. However, I do not believe Justice Ginsburg will be retiring this year because she has released statements saying she is planning to serve on the court for years to come and I don’t believe she would release statements like that if she were planning on retiring this year.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview with Jeffrey Toobin, he talked about how much the retirement of Justice Stevens will change the dynamics of the court, considering that Stevens is the leader of the liberal judges of the court, and usually will convince the “swing-voter” Justice Edwards to vote liberally. I find it interesting that Stevens was appointed by Ford as a conservative judge and has evolved to be the leader of liberal side of the court. I think in the case of the probable retirement of Stevens, Obama will appoint an openly liberal judge that will most likely remain liberal in order to keep the balance of the court (4 liberal, 4 conservatives, and 1 centralist). I disagree with Mocha =P that Obama should appoint a conservative judge because he would be passing on a chance to appoint a liberal that will likely vote the way he would want.
This is just classic politics. No one is giving a straight answer and everybody is trying to predict the future which isn't that hard to see. If Justice Stevens does retire, Obama will find some radical left wing judge that was appointed by Clinton or Carter and just passes the senate confirmation and votes his way on everything. It's what he did with Sotomayor and it's what he will do again. No story here.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article nothing really stood out to me. Everyone is just trying to guess about what is going to happen next, to keep people reading the news. I just don't see the point in trying to predict if Justice Stevens is going to retire or not. If he does announce his retirement that will make history, he is a well respected man who both conservatives and liberals listen highly to his opinions. As for Justice Ginsburg there is nothing but her looking "frail" that would be the reason she would retire. This article had really no reason to include her, she has been riding steady for many years and stills has a couple more in her. This article overall didn't teach me anything but did show me a lot of what if situations.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of Justice Ginsburg, I think she won't retire unless Obama wins a second term. She might consider it then because of her age, but she also may stay on longer just to prove she can in spite of the fact that she is a frail, little women. If she stays on after a second Obama term, she will do it because she wants to prove a point about women's rights, not because she objectively looked at her health.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda when she says that with Stevens leaving, the balance will be really thrown off seeing that he usually went with Kennedy's swing vote. So if and when Stevens retires, it will be a big deal, and the only way to keep some sort of balance would be for President Obama to pick someone like Stevens. Although, about her other comment on it being disappointing that we aren't honoring Stevens, I don't find it as that big of a deal, especially in politics. It is the duty of the President to be looking to the future, and instead of focusing on honoring his retirement, Obama should rightly be working hard to find a suitor to his spot. Yes Steven's accomplishments will be overshadowed at first, at least until the spot is replaced, but his name will eventually come up, and he will be remembered, especially for the amount of time he served.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Justice Stevens will retire within the next few months, because he has pretty much confirmed to to all who ask him. Listening to Toobin's interview, I thought that it was interesting that he said it would be to Obama's liking to pick a non judge, (Elena Kagan) because all the rest of the Justices were, and he wanted someone with a different background. Also Toobin said that it would also be to Obama's liking to pick an undramatic choice because there is so much on his plate right now. Yes this is politically difficult time for Obama because he is trying to get support for health care, jobs, etc., so I would agree that he is probably not putting all of his focus on picking the "right" nominee at the moment. I also thought it was interesting that in the article it talked about how a justice nominee with a record of decisions on issues like abortion, and other controversial issues, would most likely create ideological opposition. Sotomayor did not make any of these kinds of decisions, so had less opposition. But obviously Obama has to know the nominee's stance on these ideological issues, to make sure that when those kinds of decisions come up, they will vote his way. I'm sure Obama will find someone who will also be easily approved by the Senate, and who will vote in his favor.
ReplyDeletei agree with ashley on this subject. I don't really see the point to trying to guess if judge Stevens or judge Ginsberg will retire, if they do retire than Obama will have another chance to make history and if they don't retire then great; I'm glad they can still do such an important job at an age where most people are thinking about retiring.To be honest i disagree with Lucas because I don't think President Obama can afford to pick another far left wing nominee. People are already stirred up in both the House and the Senate and it would be hard to pass a nominee even with the majority being Democrats. So i agree with Toobin in thinking that Obama has undramatic choices for his justices. About stevens leaving and throwing off the balance, i don't really see a difference because if he leaves during Obama's presidency then he will most likely be replaced with another more liberal judge and Stevens has become more and more liberal so it should not throw off the balance too much. I believe the major change would come if Ginsberg left because her rulings have dealt more with the issue of gender roles and that seems to be an increasingly important topic; so out of the two justices predicted to leave I believe the greater loss comes with Ginsberg leaving.
ReplyDeleteIf Justice Stevens and/or Ginsburg choose to retire over the couple of years, it will not make any real change to the court. Obama is to the left of center on every issue, and these two justices vote with the liberal bloc most of the time. I do see Stevens retiring sooner than later because he has been around for a long time, and if he wants to keep the court at a 4-4-1 split, then odds are he will retire sooner than later. Ginsburg is young (relatively), and she has quite a few years left in her. The only way I see her retiring during this term is if her health starts to decline and it is completely obvious that Obama won't win a second term. Otherwise, she'll serve into Obama's second term, should he win, if not into the next Democratic President's term. The idea that Obama can change the makeup of the court is absurd. It'll take a conservative justice, or Justice Kennedy retiring, which looks unlikely. I found the article a complete waste of time, it seemed to be one of the most obvious things I have read about the supreme court. The "date site bios" on the possible replacement judges seemed to just be filler for people who have absolutely nothing to do but live their lives in what if scenarios.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me from these resources was Justice Steven's "artful" ways of getting Justice Kennedy's vote. His possible retirement will mean the Supreme Court will loose the so-called leader of the Liberals in the Supreme Court. Justice Steven's skillful ways of swaying Justice Kennedy stuck out to me the most, in Laurence v. Texas Steven compromised with Kennedy to vote for the liberal side in exchange to let Kennedy to right the decision. Although this is deemed not unethical, I think it is mischievously competitive and if Justice Stevens retires they bench will loose a very passionate and clever Liberal. I think Justice Stevens will retire this year I think he would have to be pleased that his successor would be appointed by Barack Obama, a lawyer from Chicago, where Justice Stevens has deep roots. He frequently hires law clerks from the law school of University of Chicago. I do not believe Justice Ginsburg will retire from the Supreme Court, although she has battled Pancreatic Cancer, this will not cause her to retire from the bench. I believe Elena Kegan will replace Justice Stevens she is the ultra-liberal on Obama's short list of candidates.
ReplyDeleteNothing really struck me about Justice Stevens or what his retirement means for the Supreme Court. He is an elderly man in his late 80s so it isn't really a shocker to see him go and Obama will most likely choose another liberal Justice to replace him to keep the 4/1/4 split. I think Justice Stevens will retire not necessarily this year, but before Obama leaves office because he is reaching an unpredictable age and as of now a liberal President is in office. On the other hand, Justice Ginsburg seems like she is going to stay in for the long haul. She enjoys her position as a member of the Supreme Court, and doesn't give any hint of thought about leaving. I believe Elena Kagan will be Justice Stevens' replacement. She is young, very liberal, and has no track record (although this could be seen as a negative.)
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me about the article by Tom Goldstein was how absolute he is about the fact that Justice Ginsburg will not be retiring any time in the near future. Although she is presently healthy and has made an effort to assure the public of this, the fact remains that she is an elderly woman and nothing is concrete at her age. She has battled illness before, and who's to say something else couldn't come up? I'm not neccessarily predicting her imminent death because anything is possible, I just think it's awfully presumptuous of Goldstein to assume so confidently this idea. He dismisses her retirement entirely by saying "retirement is sufficiently far over the horizon, that it really is not an issue" and even explicity declares it "Will. Not. Happen". As far as Justice Stevens goes, he is also reaching a ripe old age but anything is possible for him too. I believe Obama will try to replace either one of them with a liberal judge, but as the article also said, his decision is not going to make or break his re-election.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lainey and David that Obama will most likely select Elena Kagan as his replacement. As Lainey said, she is the most liberal on his list of candidates which makes her favorable for him. And as David said, she is young so she will most likely serve for a very long time is she is successfully appointed. Whether he picks Elena or not, I don't think Obama is going to lose too much sleep over it because he will probably focus on things that'll help with his re-election (jobs, heathcare, etc.) and not this particular issue.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mocha's belief that Obama should pick a more conservative Justice because, first off, Obama would rather pick someone who shares his political ideologies, and second, Republicans are going to oppose Obama even if he chooses a more conservative Justice because he has a different political ideology. I think Obama would probably want to keep the 4/1/4 split just the way it is and will pick a more liberal Justice because of that.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is true that Stevens will most likely retire in the near future. I doubt it would happen this summer, however, because Sotomayor was nominated last August and I'm sure Souter and Stevens discussed their potential retirement plans, and planned them so they were not too close together. Getting two new judges, whom Souter and Stevens have no influence over or opportunity to choose, would alter the balance of the court drastically and would probably not be preferable to them. I could see Stevens retiring within the next 2 years or so, but not within a year of Souter retiring. Ginsburg is definitely not retiring for the next five years at least, in my opinion. She is more than 10 years younger than Stevens and seems determined to work on the court, especially after making it through her illness.
ReplyDeleteWhen Stevens does retire it will cause a drastic change to the court, especially because getting another liberal nominee to the bench would be more difficult since the Democrats lost their supermajority. I believe that if Obama gets to choose a replacement he will choose another woman who is moderately liberal or neutral, like Wood.
In response to Mocha, I do not believe that a democratic president would appoint a republican supreme court justice. As stated, they do not have term limits so they can stay and affect our laws for as long as they want. If and when Justice Stevens retires (during a democratic presidency) I believe he will be replaced by someone that follows his political ideas. President Obama will face a lot of trouble appointing someone as liberal as Justice Stevens. I believe that both parties will prevent anyone with a strong liberal or conservative background to be appointed. It will be tough to get anyone who isn't of a moderate to liberal political background to be appointed by President Obama as state in the various articles.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that all the articles, and extra research point to Justice Stevens retiring this year. It is a good time for him to retire as President Obamas' second term is not a done deal. As the supreme court justice with the most liberal voting record, he probably waited for President Bush to leave office before retiring. "Which of these three options is going to get President Obama re-elected: (a) 500,000 new jobs, (b) expanding health care for 10 million additional Americans, or (c) Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood? " I agree with this quote, in that option C will not help PResident Obama get reelected BUT I do believe that option C will cause more Republicans to come out and vote. Justice Stevens probably wants to get his retirement done as soon as possible to try and not influence the reelection of President Obama.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with mocha's quote. The Dems have a majority in congress and the only way Repubs will try to stop the nomination of a justice would be if they are some super psycho liberal with a lot of skeletons in their closet. Obama nominating a conservative justice would lead to a 5/3/1 split in favor of conservatives and his health care bill would be killed for sure being declared unconstitutional as soon as it reaches SCOTUS. No one would fault Obama for nominating a more liberal justice, they'd complain, but it would be the same if it was a Repub trying to replace a conservative justice.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stevens will definitely retire, especially if the Dems continue to sink in the polls. He will almost certainly retire while the Dems have a majority in the Senate ( it is unlikely that they could lose their majority in the 2010 elections, but possibly in the 2012 elections.) It is even possible that he would retire before the 2010 elections so that a more liberal judge could be appointed while the Democrats have a very strong majority (I do agree with the SCOTUSblog that the loss of the 60 seat majority really sucks for the Dems) in the Senate. I disagree with the previous comments (started by mocha p) that Obama will/should (for his point of view) nominate a centrist/slightly conservative judge because Bush just nominated two conservative judges that will continue to serve for a long time, and a flipping or centrist judge to replace the VERY liberal Stevens would allow the conservatives to dominate the court, and impact many of the issues Obama really cares about for decades. I'm not sure about Ginsburg. She might wait until near the end of Obama's first term and be very conscious of the political repercussions of he decision to retire because she could probably wait out a conservative presidency if she had to. Tough call.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that Stevens retires before November, Obama will probably pick a mildly liberal judge, just because he can't afford a centrist judge for the future ideological makeup of the court, but at the same time will hate to spend any political capital and give the Republicans anything to gripe about right before an election. Really any guess on my part about the future SC nominees would be either me just regurgitating something I have heard someone else say or totally random, so I won't bother to guess on the subject.
The thing that stood out the most to me was the transformation of Justice Stevens political views and how he believes it was the Court that changed and not particularly himself. Its astonishing to think that he has been serving on the Supreme Court for well over a quarter of a century which allows me to comprehend his perspective on how the Court has changed over the course of 35 years. Justice Stevens currently holds the highest position of seniority which means he has been able to observe how the definition of a liberal and conservative has changed over the years. Also, similar to Natalie’s comment I too was surprised at how positive Goldstein was about Ginsburg not retiring. I do agree in that she will most likely not retire in the near future but it is impossible to be certain of that.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stevens will retire within Obama’s first term. Its difficult to tell whom that replacement will be but I would guess that he or she would be more liberal. I have that general belief because as the article said, Obama’s judge appointment will not be the deciding factor in whether or not he will be re-elected. The President will most likely appoint a person who he knows will easily be confirmed and not take away from his main priorities which include creating new jobs and expanding healthcare.
I agree with connerN. I don't think that Obama will agonize over his next appointee too much. Of course he will try to find a nominee who will support his ideals but once again, his priorities revolve around the revitalization of the job market and the implementation of the new health care bill. However, I don't necessarily think that he will find a nominee who will be "easily confirmed". After all, democrats are in the majority in the Senate and will most likely confirm Obama's choice to replace Stevens given that his replacement aides in rebalancing the Court.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Justice Stevens is sending un-confirmed mixed signals makes me think that he is unsure if he will retire himself. If he had any definite plans wouldn't he say so? I may be wrong but I still say he is undecided. If Justice Stevens was waiting for a democrat president, then now is his chance. As for Ginsburg, there is no reason why we should hassle her about her retirement. Ginsburg has been sick in the past yes, but as of right now she is perfectly healthy. So what if she nods off every once in a while? That isn't as important as the job she gets done. If Stevens does retire in the near future, I think it will be during Obama's second or third year if decides he wants a liberal to replace him. Elena Kagan, the "ultra liberal" would be the obvious choice because she is extremely liberal and would replace Stevens as being the liberal leader of the court. However, just because she is a super liberal doesn't exactly mean she is the right choice for the job. Many other nominees who aren't quite as extreme will make better candidates than she. Overall I think that the article was more concrete than the NPR broadcast because of more facts. Toobin's prediction could be different.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like how the article refers specifically to when Justice Stevens retires. So much buzz surrounds him because of his age. If we have to assume that justice Stevens will retire than we cant assume who the Liberals will choose to replace him becuase they will most likely ignore the views of the left and right. I can only hope they can find someone that has the ability to sway the other justices the way he and Justice Kennedy did in Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley and Lucas when explaining that there is really no point to this article except to predict what the president will do in the case of the retirement of a Justice. No one has confirmed whether any Supreme Court member is retiring at all so I think that the article is way ahead of itself. I also found the quote interesting that Amanda presented from the text discussing how the course of Stevens retirement will overshadow a majority of his accomplishments within the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sidney when she says it's rude to assume that since Justice Stevens is old that he will retire. We don't know for certain, and we really shouldn't go around making these assumptions. I have to disagree with Mocha when they say that Obama should pick a conservative nominee in order to make the republicans happy and the democrats mad. Honestly, if Obama ends up picking a republican who is the best choice then that would be great. If he picks a democrat that is the best choice then that is fine also. If he picks a candidate just because of his or her party to make others happy or upset, it is ineffective and irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the most prevalent issue for President Obama is the healthcare reform that recently was passed in Congress. The passing of this legislation upset many people and if he wants to have a second term he should choose a Supreme Court appointee that is moderately liberal or neutral. The appointment of an ultra-liberal justice will upset Republican members of the Senate and might not even get approved. I agree with Bijan that President Obama can’t afford to pick another far left wing nominee.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure who President Obama will select to be Steven’s successor but the White House will have to find a candidate that will be easily confirmed, doesn’t offend the opposition party too much, and will most likely vote liberally once appointed. I believe a controversial nominee combined with the healthcare reform bill will be detrimental to Obama’s term and his chances of reelection.
As I gathered from the article, Justice Stevens has been an extremely important element to the Court in playing the ‘umpire role’. It would be very difficult to replace him, and, as always, very controversial.
ReplyDeleteI do believe he will retire this year however. He is a very elderly man, having served since the Ford administration, and there is the matter of him failing to hire new clerks. I do not think that Justice Ginsburg will retire. She has made open statements about her health, she is just fine, and to top that off, she has openly stated that she is not going anywhere.
Two of the candidates Obama is looking at are Dianne Wood (age 59) and Elena Kagan (49). While both are excellent choices, extremely thoughtful and articulate, I believe Kagan should be Obama’s choice for 2 reasons:
1) Dianne Wood has left a trail of opinions on controversial issues such as abortion, which would make her difficult to pass. Obama has far more important issues to cover, like finding jobs for Americans or his new health plan. One of his main goals for a new candidate is that they would be a speedily approved of.
2) Kagan has no paper trails and she is ten years younger. She is just as qualified and she is able to maintain a seat for a longer time than Wood. However, she does not have any experience in judging and interpreting the constitution. She is more than capable of adapting to the role.
I agree with DRajec.
ReplyDeleteObama would not appoint a conservative when it contrasts with his own views, not only that, but his main focus is getting someone passed as quickly as possible while still agreeing with him for some points, a neutral sort of candidate. A conservative could be opposed by democrats or progressives.
Also its hard to tell who would be the right choice to replace Stevens. Elena Kagan seems like she would be a Stevens replacement by being an ultra liberal she seems like a perfect choice if we could only decipher whether she truly has that uniform view of how to interpret and more importantly inforce our Constitutional laws. On the other hand Diane Wood would also be a good choice. She has been praised for her legal abilities, active participation in oral arguements and she is also liberal. Wood's being pro-abortion does add a bit of controversy to her choice as the replacement so i believe Kagan would prove a little better
ReplyDeleteWhat struck out to me the most is that the justices seem so quiet about whether or not they are going to retire or not. If a justice is going to retire, they are probably retiring at a time in which they believe the president will pick someone with or close to the ideals of the justice, so shouldn't they justice be more vocal about whether or not they are retiring so the president may have more time to pick the candidate who will fill his spot the best?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stevens will retire from the court, but only on the basis that Obama may pick a liberal candidate to fill his position. However, I do not believe that Ginsberg will retired mainly because she said she would not. But it seems strange that she has such poor health that she would not retire, because a liberal judge would most likely be picked to fill her spot.
I feel like there is a decent chance that Stevens will retire at the end of this term. Currently, there is a democratic president in office, so if Stevens does retire there is a good chance a justice that thinks similarly will be nominated, and he knows that. The way he is conducting himself makes it seem as though he is ready to leave, but that's just how I see it. And, though this may sound blunt, he is pretty old. I know that in itself isn't a reason to retire, but still, it wouldn't be surprising if he did retire at his age.
ReplyDeleteAddressing Hayley's Comment (I thought it came every 75 hears....Pardon my pun:
ReplyDeleteI believe that Kagan being 10 years younger than Wood makes it a little controversial because of her age. People may see that as a lack of experience and that could be her downfall. However, I do agree with Wood being maybe a difficult choice to get elected because of her views on abortion and the controversy of abortion controls going through congress for the health care bill.
I agree with gioascolani and DRajec on the fact President Obama will not pick a more conservative Justice. Obama is going to want a Justice that shares his political views and ideals and even though a liberal judge will most likely be hard to pass, he will figure out a way. Justice Stevens is a highly respected liberal Justice and if Obama replaced him with a more conservative Justice, this would cause a riot from the American people.
ReplyDeleteI find it extremely obnoxious that the media jumps the gun on retirements. Justice Stevens probably wouldn't mind announcing his retirement if the press didn't get in his face about it and make it as dramatic as possible.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Justice Stevens retires in the near future, I hope Obama will learn from Justice Stevens' history in changing his views from conservative to liberal. The White House needs to be careful in choosing someone who will be consistent with their views, of which he/she will share with Obama.
And I don't see Justice Ginsberg going anywhere. Like the article said, she's in her judicial prime.
I disagree with kfitz and lucas when they say that Obama would definitely appoint a very liberal candidate. While I still think whomever he chooses will be liberal, with the change in politics in recent months I think it would be much harder to get an extremely liberal candidate on the bench, and it would be a waste of effort. Obama already got his one wildcard appointee in, and although he definitely won't pick a hardcore conservative it is not imperative for him to get another hardcore liberal on the Supreme Court. Getting a moderate liberal through the system swiftly and without alienating any Republicans would take precedence over getting an extreme liberal, especially with Obama's other plans for the rest of his term that will require Republican support.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article and in response to Della, I find it VERY sad that we aren't honoring Justice Stevens for his commitment to the court. I'm sure there is some sort of ceremony that I'm unaware of, because that would just be wrong if NOTHING went down, but I think that Stevens' retirement should be as equally important as the appointment of a new Justice, because they go hand-in-hand. Everybody says we have to look towards the future, but it's the history that we always look back to in order to solve new problems in the future, and it's people like Stevens' who made that history happen, and can provide insight for the future. Justice Stevens' deserves a facebook fanpage and a raging party.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, i do believe that Justice Stevens will probably retire sometime this year, however, i don't think people should be worrying about it so much yet. Whoever Obama decides to replace him though when the time comes, will probably have to be someone more towards the right side, not somebody like Elena Kagan. Obama can't really afford to do that. Either way, the court will definitely be impacted greatly if he leaves. The audio recording said that he's the 4th longest serving Supreme Court Justice in the U.S. History.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article, it is clear that the author is set on Justice Stevens retiring, but he is not as sure with Justice Ginsburg. It makes sense that word is out that Justice Stevens may retire because he has released statements, but Justice Ginsburg has made no such notions. In regards to Justice Stevens, Tom Goldstein says, “The fact that the nation’s attention will shift so quickly to speculation about his successor, rather than an appreciation of him, is unfortunate.” I agree with this statement in part, because I think that the US will understand that Justice Stevens is a great man, but I think that because the politics of nominating US Supreme Court Justices is so popular, as well as important, that the nominating of a new justice will receive more attention. Because we are in an economic recession, everything the president does is criticized, whether good or bad, so the nominating of another justice is just part of that banter.
ReplyDeleteOut of the three questions discussed in the article about what will get President Obama reelected, I believe the article’s point that no one will choose a new supreme court justice, the choice will be between healthcare and jobs. This is because a new justice will not affect everyone, or many people, in America, but healthcare and new jobs will.
What struck me most in the NPR bit were Toobin's remarks on the dynamic of the supreme court, more so how it changes every time the justice line-up is shuffled. The justices have a certain rapport with one another which requires adaptation as justices retire and their replacements are ushered in. Specifically, the rapport between Justices Stevens and Kennedy seems most vital to the current supreme court balance as Stevens' power of persuasion is the catalyst for Kennedy's left-leaning decisions. With Stevens' retirement, Kennedy may very well vote with the conservative justice, upsetting this 4-4-1 balance they currently have in place.
ReplyDeleteI believe Stevens retirement is more or less set in stone as he is approaching 90 and a liberal president is in office. Ginsberg's retirement seems less likely as she insists that her health is no longer cause for concern (see SCOTUS blog).
Elena Kagen would be my personal choice to succeed Stevens since she seems to be uber-liberal. She also doesn't have a background as a judge which the Obama administration might find refreshing. Diane Wood may be a safer choice as her tendency to lean towards the middle
might make for an easy confirmation process. The danger is that she might be a wolf in sheep's clothing and side with the conservatives more often than not (like Suitor or Stevens but opposite). A raging liberal seems wisest since it would preserve the balance of 4-4-1 (or 5-4 as it realistically may become).
I would like to make a general response to my classmates' comments in saying that the media's jumping the gun on supreme court retirements doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Given that the media started covering the 2008 presidential campaign in late 2006, this supreme court speculation seems almost tasteful in comparison. Stevens is a great justice and has accomplished a lot in his 35 years, but I'm much too cynical about the media to get upset over the fact that those accomplishments will be overlooked. To assume otherwise is too idealistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bijan and disagree with Lucas about Obama appointing someone completely left sided. He definitely cannot afford to do that in this time period now. I also agree with the statement Bijan made at the end about Gingsberg leaving. She definitely will end up having a much bigger impact than Stevens, seeing she comes from the other side of the spectrum of political belief. However, i really don't think she will even leave at all during Obama's presidency, and by the time she ends up retiring, there could possibly be a Republican (so more conservative belief) in the office.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lucas I do not think Justice Ginsberg will retire, I believe she is a strong and capable judge. She is a survivor of both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer, I don't think this makes her weak or frail. I believe this makes her strong and an iron jawed fighter. Without her on the bench there would only be one woman left out of the 9 supreme court justices, Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Ruth Ginsberg holds a power position for women rights and she is a role model for all aspiring woman
ReplyDeleteI really don't see this a huge deal. Justice Stevens has already said he would retire in the next 3 years, still in Obama's presidency. It wouldn't surprise me, if Stevens retires, if Obama nominated a more liberal candidate for the seat. Poll numbers are going down for democrats, which means come election season the number of liberals/democrats seats in congress will go down. So Obama needs to fill as many seats as possible with liberal thinkers, and leave some part of the federal government with people who will agree with him and the dems.
ReplyDeleteYes, Stevens is old and he is planning on retiring soon. I believe his retirement is a chance for Obama to show what kind of President he is. When Steven's decides to retire, Obama's decision on who to replace him with can either hurt America's opinion of him or raise it up. This would be a good thing for Obama if Steven's were to retire.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Ginsberg will retire any time soon. She is not a weak judge and will stay in her spot on the Supreme court to represent women's rights all over america.
If either of these two people retire, whoever it is, their replacement will need to bring one thing to the table; and that is balance. The court is supposed to have order and be balanced, and have no bias to being liberal or conservative. So i believe that whoever is put into our Supreme court should keep the balance leveled.
I do believe that Stevens will retire after the end of this term. I think all the signs are right. As heard in the broadcast, the departure of Stevens will change the dynamics of the court. It will leave an open "liberal" seat, and if Obama was wise he should nominate another liberal to balance it out. Also I find it intriguing how Stevens was nominated by conservative President Ford. This shows how someone can change over time, and sometimes the "right" pick isn't always "right." Overall I think Obama will nominate a liberal like Leah Sears or Diane Wood.
ReplyDeletei agree with lainey and lucas on the fact that justice Ginsberg will not retire, for the same reasons. i find jillian's post very intriguing i never thought of Obama doing that before and it seems to make some sort of sense and makes me think about my earlier thought of Obama picking a more middle of the road judge. It now seems plausible to me that Obama might just make a stand and try to fill and leave as many dems as he can in the fed government like Jillian said. I'm glad we have thinkers like her to point out different sides of an argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lainey and Lucas on the status of Justice Ginsburg. She is a strong leader and example for anyone. And she has only been on the court since 1993, a relatively short time for past judges. Ginsburg hasn't given any reason to suspect her retirement either. I do believe Justice Ginsburg wants to remain in the court as long as she is able.
ReplyDeleteAgreein' with Lucas for once! Justice Ginsburg ain't going anywhere anytime soon! She's a tough one, and like Jilly said, she hasn't given any reason for us to suspect her leaving. Besides, she had a full recovery from cancer and is back on the courts! She must really want to be there!
ReplyDeleteThe article from SCOTUSblog is highly convincing that Justice Stevens will retire soon. His lack of clerks, general oldness, and Democratic president, seem like good signs of retirement to me.
ReplyDeleteWhilst reading the aforementioned article this little snippet jumped out at me: "Liberals will not only rightly view this as their last, best opportunity to appoint a genuine progressive to the Court for a long time, but also will recognize the significant prospect that the Court will ironically become more conservative under a Democratic President with this change in membership insofar as Justice Stevens is the left’s leading strategist and seemingly has the best relationship with Justice Kennedy."
Why did it jump out you ask? Well, to me it seems a little sad and rather frightening. Me, I'm a progressive, therefore I think the court needs more of 'em, and hearing that statement made me a little nervy. For good reason or not, it just did.
Personally, I'm sure at least Justice Stevens is seriously considering retirement. He's nearly 90, and he was nominated all the way back to President Ford's years. He propably is uncertain about his retirement, however, because he wants to ensure that his vacancy is filled with a qualified justice. I'm sure it will take Stevens at least a year to predict whether or not Obama is going to make the nomination he would be hoping for, and if that's not the case, I would not be suprised to see justice Stevens stick around until the next presidency.
ReplyDeletei agree that Justice ginsburg probably is not going anywhere. Shes been on the court since 1993, not that long if you think about it, especially compared to Justice Stevens. After successfully fighting off cancer, I would be suprised to see her hand down an opportunity to futher impact the nation for the better. Becomming a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is a great honor and I believe Justice Ginsburg will take advantage of her opportunity to fight for what she believes in
ReplyDeleteThe audio clip and the article were interesting, I guess. Learning about the graduate evolution of the courts from the beginning to the end of a justice's time was cool. Not many jobs have that kind of term length. Politics, behind the scenes wheeling and dealing, and under the table stuff were disheartening to hear about, but not surprising. Toobin's words on the polarization of the court were pretty spot on. "The fact that the nation’s attention will shift so quickly to speculation about his successor, rather than an appreciation of him, is unfortunate." That's a good quote. Totally captures the train of thought in Washington, probably. Draaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Flores; the Obama administration should totally choose an uber-Liberal (a level 23 Liberal or higher) to succeed Stevens. Obama don't need to worry about the confirmation process; uber-Liberals have the powers of confusion and hypnosis, a lethal combination and Washington favorite. And the balance will be kept in the Crunch Wrap Supreme Court, and stuff. I also agree with Andre in that Stevens is totally gonna retire 'cause that guy is old and since we got a bunch of flaming Librul choices for his seat and a Leebruul prez then there's no need to worry since it's totally gonna be a Libreel in the seat so don't worry guys, ok? Seriously, dudes, I got the 4-1-1 on the 4-4-1 and the balance of powerz is gonna be all right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrea's statement that "Justice Ginsburg probably is not going anywhere." As Andrea said, she is young on the court, especially compared to Justice Stevens, and after being through so much in her personal life, she has alot of drive left in her. Jonathan's statement, the balance of powerz is gonna be all right," makes perfect sense to me, and I truly agree. Throughout all bicker and banter, good will come out somewhere, or somehow, but the politics will still live on.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment that johnathon made, but i don't think obama has the power at this point to make it happen without didasterous results, if he can get it done at all. does anyone think that if for some weird reason Stevens does NOT retire that he could last untill the next Democratic president. He's a pretty old dude now, so.... If you don't think he's goinf to retire, why?
ReplyDeleteI thought that the video and the article were very interesting. I hope i never see the day in which obama can appoint three supreme court justices. Although the article says that it is unlikely for ginsburg to retire it is highly likely that stevens will. I do not like how the timing has worked out to allow Obama to have so many appointments
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jonathan's comment i think that the court would be changed dramatically if obama has so many appointments. All Obama would do is pick the most liberal judge he could find from some big city (who have some very special super powers)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe audio clip was interesting and so was the article. I agree Ginsburg will most likely stay she's too determined to stay than to retire. But it is very possible for Steven to retire he is getting up there in age. I agree as the so called "leader of the liberal justices" it might be a hard loss for them. I agree with the article where it basically claims that Obama's possible new nominee will not make or break his reelection, so he probably won't do anything too risky and just appoint someone moderately liberal and not too progressive.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with DRajec and Ashley, these articles and this topic is not too surprising or really controversial. Yeah Justice Steven is getting up there in age and is a liberal so he will most likely retire will Obama's in the White House. It makes sense logically. Surprise, Surprise... Obama's going to pick a liberal justice!! He probably won't pick someone too progressive though because he still wants to appoint someone who's going to agree with him most of the time. In my honest opinion,I just think it's premature to focus on all the what ifs...instead of giving focus to the present issues and things going on right now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a good chance that Stevens will retire simply because with Obama in office the new justice will most likely be in line with Steven's beliefs. I believe he hasn't retire yet just because he wasn't a fan of the idea of Bush putting someone in his place. I believe he will be much more comfortable with Obama's decision. This is just as we discussed in class how most Supreme Court justices wait until someone with their similar political beliefs is in office so that they will be replaced by someone who is in agreement with them on most issues.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin's comment, I also think it is unlikely that Ginsburg will retire and also believe that it would not be good for Obama to have the opportunity to put so fill so many seats. This would be bad for our country if anybody was able to do so. If this were to happen the court would lay much more uneven as far as beliefs go. It is best to have that good mixture of liberal and conservative too much of either one is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI think it will be vey sad to have Stevens leave the supreme justice, because he has been there so long and has become a "historic figure".However, I do think its time for him to retire get a break from the polictical scene. Also now that Obama and him kid of share the same beliefs and could appoint someone that would have the same opinions. I definitely do not think Ginsberg is going to retire anytime soon, because she has suffered from a sickness and now is better and still is doing her job as a judge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with jonathan readinf the articles and learning about th court system was so interesting, because it is a lifetime appointment. So that means when the presiddent does appoint someone to be the next justice in supreme court they are really good and can intepret the constitution and establish laws.
ReplyDeleteAlso i agree with everyone else that says justice Ginsberg is not going to retire anytime soon
Yes I believe its time for Stevens to retire. I respect his time time on the court, as connerN put it... well over a quarter of a century. But I feel hes getting too old for comfort and needs to enjoy his latter years away from the bench. Contrary to what Sudney said, I dont find it rude at all that people specululate he plans to retire due to his age. You would think the country would want the members of the Supreme Court to be sharp. Thats a rare characteristic when your almost a century old. And of course he would want to wait for an Obama president, he wants a liberal in his place.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the audio clip Jeffery Toobin commented on who he believed would take the place of Stevens on the court, Elena Kagan. The reasoning partially because he believed the Obama admin would appreciate her left leaning veiws and her ability to work with more conservative ideals as well, also stating the fact that she was never a judge. why do they think this is such a good thing? wouldnt they want someone with a background/history as a judge.?
ReplyDeleteI think spending time predicting whether or not Justice Stevens is going to retire is unnecessary. Replacement is always inevitable and well, look at his age. He's been serving for a great deal amount of time and has definitely made an impact. Putting asides death or an impending disability, it's very likely that the Justice's will choose to retire when extremely old and when a president of similar beliefs in office. With that in mind, what really is important to focus on is who will he be replaced with. Obviously, as the previous students have stated, President Obama will almost surely choose a liberal.
ReplyDeleteAs for Justice Ginsberg, I have the same comment. Just put into consideration who she's going to be replaced with because it will be inevitable.
Noting that the current president is Barack Hussein Obama, I agree with Chris's comment for the most part. If either one or both Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsberg decide to retire, it would not make to much of a difference. This is of course due to their parallel beliefs and the Justice's consistent viewpoints and votes on issues. So further adding on to my earlier comment, this makes the whole justice replacement issue not that great big of a deal. However it would be if one of the conservative Justices were to be resigning soon; thus giving Obama the ability to affect the majority.
ReplyDeleteAs said in the audio recording, Justice Stevens isn't sure about when he is going to retire. People are already trying to get a head start on the "future-vacancy" of the justice's chair. I agree with Lucas that it is pretty hard to predict the future, especially when it comes to politics, and I also recall the fact that the man is 90 years old! Sure, 40 is the new 30, but I think 90 is still 90. His body and mind are beginnig to loose function so it might possibly be time to THINK about replacments, not appointing them.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the absolute decision of Justice Steven's retirement, I do believe it is in the near future. However, I don't think that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will retire in the next few years because of Justice Stevens. If you think about the situation, 2 justices giving up their chairs at the same time would be hard on those who remain in the Supreme Court because Obama would then have a HUGE say in how the Supreme Court would sit (either liberal or conservative, but obviously liberal because he is a democrat).
ReplyDeleteIn saying this, I believe that both judges retiring within three years of eachother is pretty hard to imagine, but as Steven Heng said, replacements will be inevitable.
What stood out to me was the author of that article seems very sure of himself. They even went on to explain what was going to happen in the near future with absolute certainty. When it comes to Stevens retirement i think he will definately retire this year. This wont impact the court as much as it would if there was a more conservative president. Justice ginsburg, in my opinion, will most likely not retire. I agree with the article when it comes to this. I also agree with the article that Obama will choose Elena Kagan as Stevens replacement. This will keep the supreme court majoprity the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex in the fact that Stevens may be old but he still has not even announced his retirement and people are already thinking about who is going to appointed. I think it would be pretty funny if Stevens doesant retire this year and completely shocks everybody. I dont think that it will happen but it is still a possibility. He might just keep going so he sets an even better record for oldest supremecourt justice. As long as he is physically and mentally able i think he should stay on. His retirement wont even be that big of a deal since another liberal will replace him anyway, thus keeping the majority the same.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mr. Silverman for posting so late.....
ReplyDelete