Stevens Informs Obama He Is Retiring

[ASUMountaineer]

perhaps, but it is what it is. If Obama were to nominate a moderate it would just make the court more right wing powered.

I understand this, but this isn't the mentality that should be used. It's become a game, a how Liberal or Conservative of a judge can I get congress to approve of without them/the media blasting them as a fringe party member.


There does need be balance within the court system, but it shouldn't be at the cost of a 90 year old man hanging on for dear life, hoping that he doesn't croak before another Liberal/Conservative president is elected to replace him so that the court doesn't teeter to the "other" spectrum. I'm assuming here, so don't get pissy, but you seem to be of the "centrist" view that Danefan was talking about. What's the point? Why have 9 justices if only ones vote ends up counting? Obviously this is a leap of faith, hoping the olive branch would be extended back when your party is no longer in power, but why not put someone up who is willing to weigh both sides of an argument objectively rather than politically? Is that not the purpose of a court system?

Because the aim is to get "what is mine." Or at least, what benefits me the most. That's the problem with the whole system now...objectivity, what's that?

[houndawg]

I didn't say he was "one of the best ever".

That's true, but you replied to AG1's post laughing at Jon's assertion that JPS was "one of the best ever." A logical assumption regarding you even responding to it, would suggest you concur with Jon. But, I'll rephrase my question though. What does his welcomed appointment from 30+ years ago have to do with anything--especially AG1's post laughing at calling JPS "one of the best ever?"

What I was alluding to, and am little surprised that I have to spell out for you, is how far to the right SCOTUS has drifted in the past 35 years. I forget that most posters here were either very young or still in the planning stage when Stevens was appointed, but he was at the time called a center-right appointment, brilliant legal mind, yada yada...now he is called the most liberal judge on SCOTUS.

I think Obama will push hard for what is by today's reactionary standards a liberal. BO is losing support from the left over Iraq, Gitmo, Afghanistan, bailing out incompetent bankers and Wall Street parasites, oil drilling......but he's going to need to have these things on record to point to at election time that in spite of the apoplectic bleating of the Republicans and conservatives, he is pretty moderate to conservative on foreign policy. I think it's going to be a great show and even money that Mitch McConnell has a stroke during the process.

[ASUMountaineer]

That's true, but you replied to AG1's post laughing at Jon's assertion that JPS was "one of the best ever." A logical assumption regarding you even responding to it, would suggest you concur with Jon. But, I'll rephrase my question though. What does his welcomed appointment from 30+ years ago have to do with anything--especially AG1's post laughing at calling JPS "one of the best ever?"

What I was alluding to, and am little surprised that I have to spell out for you, is how far to the right SCOTUS has drifted in the past 35 years. I forget that most posters here were either very young or still in the planning stage when Stevens was appointed, but he was at the time called a center-right appointment, brilliant legal mind, yada yada...now he is called the most liberal judge on SCOTUS.

Yeah, I was born 10 months after Reagan took office.

I think Obama will push hard for what is by today's reactionary standards a liberal. BO is losing support from the left over Iraq, Gitmo, Afghanistan, bailing out incompetent bankers and Wall Street parasites, oil drilling......but he's going to need to have these things on record to point to at election time that in spite of the apoplectic bleating of the Republicans and conservatives, he is pretty moderate to conservative on foreign policy. I think it's going to be a great show and even money that Mitch McConnell has a stroke during the process.

I'm surprised you think your post alluded to hardly anything when this is what you were responding to.

A sad day for America.

Thank you Justice Stevens for your service - you were one of the best ever

Your post doesn't allude to anything when taken as a response to this. So, it makes perfect sense that you'd need to "spell it out" as it didn't really relate to AG1's post.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. The court has moved to the right since Stevens' appointment, but prior to that, it was more to the left. The court's balance is cyclical. And, Stevens opinions are what have led to his being called a liberal. This isn't surprising, considering today's partisan environment. It's also common that a justice will be perceived one way before appointment and a different way at retirement.

I think you're right, I think BO will go with an appointment left of Sotomayor. We shall see if your prediction is correct on the leanings of his choice (and Mitch McConnell).

[Skjellyfetti]

This is pretty awesome.

The second strike to Babe Ruth drew relentless razzing from the Chicago Cubs dugout.

That much we know.

What happened next -- specifically, the interpretation of it all -- touched off one of baseball's most romanticized controversies and gave birth to arguably the greatest urban myth in sports history.

What Ruth did at Wrigley Field on Oct. 1, 1932 -- moments before hitting the final World Series homer of his legendary career -- was something witnesses argued about for years, also.

Only a few are left.

"He pointed toward the scoreboard in center field," said one Cubs fan who was there. "That much I do know."

No need to make this witness swear on the Bible.

We'll take Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, now 87, at his word.

The New York Yankees led the series 2-0. With Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just a month from being elected president, sitting behind home plate, Ruth had clubbed a three-run shot earlier in the game, but the Cubs had rallied to tie the score in the fourth.

Chicago pitcher Charley Root threw a fastball past Ruth in the fifth to go up a strike, and the Cubs bench, led by pitcher Guy Bush, began heckling the "Bambino." Bush even stepped onto the field and made a "whammy" gesture in Ruth's direction.

"I remember Bush was in some running razzing business with Ruth. He came out of the dugout," Stevens recalled. "That's when Ruth pointed toward the scoreboard. My interpretation of that was, 'I'm going to knock you to the moon!' The fact is, he did point."

Root threw back-to-back balls before firing strike two past Ruth, much to the delight of the home crowd. And team.

Again, Bush was out of the dugout.

Again, Ruth pointed toward center field.

"After that, I know there's lots of skepticism," Stevens said.

Dissenting opinions, some might say.

According to accounts of the game - and they differ wildly - the second strike prompted Ruth to point again. Some on the field claim to have heard him say he still had another strike coming.

But the Cubs let him have it some more, as Root went into his windup.

The 2-2 pitch was a changeup that Ruth ripped like a laser, a shot some estimates put at 490 feet.

Right where he had pointed, too.

One that Stevens has cited more than his favorite legal precedent.

"I've told it too many times to count," he said. "I guess it's my claim to fame."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/o ... full.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

What I was alluding to, and am little surprised that I have to spell out for you, is how far to the right SCOTUS has drifted in the past 35 years. I forget that most posters here were either very young or still in the planning stage when Stevens was appointed, but he was at the time called a center-right appointment, brilliant legal mind, yada yada...now he is called the most liberal judge on SCOTUS.

Yeah, I was born 10 months after Reagan took office.

I think Obama will push hard for what is by today's reactionary standards a liberal. BO is losing support from the left over Iraq, Gitmo, Afghanistan, bailing out incompetent bankers and Wall Street parasites, oil drilling......but he's going to need to have these things on record to point to at election time that in spite of the apoplectic bleating of the Republicans and conservatives, he is pretty moderate to conservative on foreign policy. I think it's going to be a great show and even money that Mitch McConnell has a stroke during the process.

I'm surprised you think your post alluded to hardly anything when this is what you were responding to.

Your post doesn't allude to anything when taken as a response to this. So, it makes perfect sense that you'd need to "spell it out" as it didn't really relate to AG1's post.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. The court has moved to the right since Stevens' appointment, but prior to that, it was more to the left. The court's balance is cyclical. And, Stevens opinions are what have led to his being called a liberal. This isn't surprising, considering today's partisan environment. It's also common that a justice will be perceived one way before appointment and a different way at retirement.

I think you're right, I think BO will go with an appointment left of Sotomayor. We shall see if your prediction is correct on the leanings of his choice (and Mitch McConnell).

AG1's response was due to him thinking Stevens is a liberal, I was just trying to suggest that Stevens wasn't really a liberal (something he himself has said).

[ASUMountaineer]

I'm surprised you think your post alluded to hardly anything when this is what you were responding to.



Your post doesn't allude to anything when taken as a response to this. So, it makes perfect sense that you'd need to "spell it out" as it didn't really relate to AG1's post.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken. The court has moved to the right since Stevens' appointment, but prior to that, it was more to the left. The court's balance is cyclical. And, Stevens opinions are what have led to his being called a liberal. This isn't surprising, considering today's partisan environment. It's also common that a justice will be perceived one way before appointment and a different way at retirement.

I think you're right, I think BO will go with an appointment left of Sotomayor. We shall see if your prediction is correct on the leanings of his choice (and Mitch McConnell).

AG1's response was due to him thinking Stevens is a liberal, I was just trying to suggest that Stevens wasn't really a liberal (something he himself has said).

Perhaps, though AG1 didn't type a word. All Dback said was the JPS was the one of the greatest of all time. AG1 could just think that Stevens was a bad jurist, not necessarily liberal--though unlikely. However, as mentioned, when a post consists of you might need to spell out your inferences.

As I said, your point is well taken overall. In addition, Stevens is considered liberal because of his opinions (liberal by today's standard), and that's evidenced by Dback's support. All of that in spite of Stevens' once assumed "conservatism." I personally disagree that JPS is not liberal. I think Stevens is somewhat liberal, as it's defined today ("strict constructionist" = "conservative").

[OL FU]

A sad day for America.

Thank you Justice Stevens for your service - you were one of the best ever

Dude is 90 years old, let him rest

[OL FU]

I am going with one not too controversial unless something comes out that wasn't determined during the vetting process. I really don't think they want an ugly fight (of course they will get a fight whoever it is) before the election. I don't think you will see one with quotes like Liu made about less importance on the intent of the founders.

I don't know - a nasty confirmation process could get the Obama supporters really fired up for November. Right now, the GOP has all the momentum heading into the Fall elections. Giving his base something to really rally around might be the best bet he has to avoid big Dem losses in November.

I haven't seen any polls on this lately, but my guess is that American's don't care as long as a justice is somewhat policy setting, but a nominee like the justices who sit on the 9th circuit would be one more nail in the democratic coffine, imho.

[OL FU]

What I was alluding to, and am little surprised that I have to spell out for you, is how far to the right SCOTUS has drifted in the past 35 years.

That point is fine as long as you are willing to concede how far left the court drifted in years before that.

I would argue it seems far right (constructionist) mainly because of how far left (activist) it became in the 60s and 70s and we simply got used to it.

[houndawg]

What I was alluding to, and am little surprised that I have to spell out for you, is how far to the right SCOTUS has drifted in the past 35 years.

That point is fine as long as you are willing to concede how far left the court drifted in years before that.

I would argue it seems far right (constructionist) mainly because of how far left (activist) it became in the 60s and 70s and we simply got used to it.

True, it's commutative. You have to drift from somewhere, too. I don't know how much different SCOTUS was pre-60s and 70s because I was too young to be interested. And too, at the end of the day there is always a little uncertainty - Felix Frankfurter was supposed to be a liberal and Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative.

[OL FU]

That point is fine as long as you are willing to concede how far left the court drifted in years before that.

I would argue it seems far right (constructionist) mainly because of how far left (activist) it became in the 60s and 70s and we simply got used to it.

True, it's commutative. You have to drift from somewhere, too. I don't know how much different SCOTUS was pre-60s and 70s because I was too young to be interested. And too, at the end of the day there is always a little uncertainty - Felix Frankfurter was supposed to be a liberal and Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative.

I am not an expert on the history of the court, but think about it this way. In the 30s Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with extra judges because the court kept kicking out portions of the new deal. Sounds pretty conservative. From the 50s we had every thing but Brown versus Board of education (which I agree with) to the 70's with Roe Versus Wade ( which I don't). Obviously an activist court far outside of the "norm". I would suggest that today's court is getting back to the normal. But it is simply a suggestion, I'll the historians differ with that opinion. But I am firmly committed that the reason the court seems so conservative today is only because of how liberal it was during he previous three or four decades.

[houndawg]

True, it's commutative. You have to drift from somewhere, too. I don't know how much different SCOTUS was pre-60s and 70s because I was too young to be interested. And too, at the end of the day there is always a little uncertainty - Felix Frankfurter was supposed to be a liberal and Earl Warren was supposed to be a conservative.

I am not an expert on the history of the court, but think about it this way. In the 30s Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with extra judges because the court kept kicking out portions of the new deal. Sounds pretty conservative. From the 50s we had every thing but Brown versus Board of education (which I agree with) to the 70's with Roe Versus Wade ( which I don't). Obviously an activist court far outside of the "norm". I would suggest that today's court is getting back to the normal. But it is simply a suggestion, I'll the historians differ with that opinion. But I am firmly committed that the reason the court seems so conservative today is only because of how liberal it was during he previous three or four decades.

I think it was FDR who appointed Frankfurter thinking he would be a liberal.

[OL FU]

I am not an expert on the history of the court, but think about it this way. In the 30s Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with extra judges because the court kept kicking out portions of the new deal. Sounds pretty conservative. From the 50s we had every thing but Brown versus Board of education (which I agree with) to the 70's with Roe Versus Wade ( which I don't). Obviously an activist court far outside of the "norm". I would suggest that today's court is getting back to the normal. But it is simply a suggestion, I'll the historians differ with that opinion. But I am firmly committed that the reason the court seems so conservative today is only because of how liberal it was during he previous three or four decades.

I think it was FDR who appointed Frankfurter thinking he would be a liberal.

And Ford who appointed Stevens. Who knows what Ford was thinking. Probably hoping he could walk without falling down

[houndawg]

I think it was FDR who appointed Frankfurter thinking he would be a liberal.

And Ford who appointed Stevens. Who knows what Ford was thinking. Probably hoping he could walk without falling down

Ford was likely thinking that he'd made a good appointment of a centr-right moderate, which was what Stevens was by the standards of the day. Gerald Ford would probably be considered a liberal RINO by todays republicans.

[OL FU]

And Ford who appointed Stevens. Who knows what Ford was thinking. Probably hoping he could walk without falling down

Ford was likely thinking that he'd made a good appointment of a centr-right moderate, which was what Stevens was by the standards of the day. Gerald Ford would probably be considered a liberal RINO by todays republicans.

Right along with Nixon

[Skjellyfetti]

Right along with Nixon

Right along with all the Republican Presidents in the last 50+ years... minus Reagan.

When conservatives say "RINO" what they really mean is "not Reagan"

[OL FU]

Right along with Nixon

Right along with all the Republican Presidents in the last 50+ years... minus Reagan.

When conservatives say "RINO" what they really mean is "not Reagan"

I do believe there is truth in that statement

[AZGrizFan]

Right along with Nixon

Right along with all the Republican Presidents in the last 50+ years... minus Reagan.

When conservatives say "RINO" what they really mean is "not Reagan"

[houndawg]

Ford was likely thinking that he'd made a good appointment of a centr-right moderate, which was what Stevens was by the standards of the day. Gerald Ford would probably be considered a liberal RINO by todays republicans.

Right along with Nixon

Now there's a day I never thought I'd live to see......

[JohnStOnge]

Never appoint anyone to anything if they like to wear bow ties. It's a dead giveaway.

[OL FU]

Right along with Nixon

Now there's a day I never thought I'd live to see......

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about But if anyone doesn't think Nixon was a big government guy, they need to do a little research. Price controls, supported laws to require businesses to provide health insurnace.

Only real differences in the two parties back then were defense issues and the speed at whcih government should grow.

[houndawg]

Now there's a day I never thought I'd live to see......

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about But if anyone doesn't think Nixon was a big government guy, they need to do a little research. Price controls, supported laws to require businesses to provide health insurnace.

Only real differences in the two parties back then were defense issues and the speed at whcih government should grow.

Never thought I'd see the day when a mean little thug like Nixon would be considered a liberal RINO. I thought somebody who was around during those interesting times would get it. Sorry.

Republicans have always been for big government, except in their rhetoric.

[OL FU]

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about But if anyone doesn't think Nixon was a big government guy, they need to do a little research. Price controls, supported laws to require businesses to provide health insurnace.

Only real differences in the two parties back then were defense issues and the speed at whcih government should grow.

Never thought I'd see the day when a mean little thug like Nixon would be considered a liberal RINO. I thought somebody who was around during those interesting times would get it. Sorry.

Republicans have always been for big government, except in their rhetoric.

no problem I was around but I was young. Nixon like most republicans was a Rockefeller republican. Rockefeller Republicans were nothing more than hawkish, anti union democrats. AFter Goldwaters loss the republicans stayed far away from conservativism and most of them still do.

Let me change the term hawkish to livid anti communist. In the 50s and 60s( until 68) the dems were probably more hawkish. The dems were also anti communist until around 68 but they weren't as rabid about it as the republicans.

[houndawg]

Never thought I'd see the day when a mean little thug like Nixon would be considered a liberal RINO. I thought somebody who was around during those interesting times would get it. Sorry.

Republicans have always been for big government, except in their rhetoric.

no problem I was around but I was young. Nixon like most republicans was a Rockefeller republican. Rockefeller Republicans were nothing more than hawkish, anti union democrats. AFter Goldwaters loss the republicans stayed far away from conservativism and most of them still do.

Let me change the term hawkish to livid anti communist. In the 50s and 60s( until 68) the dems were probably more hawkish. The dems were also anti communist until around 68 but they weren't as rabid about it as the republicans.

I was young too, starting high school, but we lived about an hour from Berkeley............seems to my recollection that the anti-communism seemed to recede slightly after we clearly took the lead in the space race.

Goldwater was an aberration, big government Republicans started with Lincoln. Trivia: Hillary Clinton worked for Goldwater's campaign. She was decades ahead of most Republicans in claiming that she didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left her.

[OL FU]

no problem I was around but I was young. Nixon like most republicans was a Rockefeller republican. Rockefeller Republicans were nothing more than hawkish, anti union democrats. AFter Goldwaters loss the republicans stayed far away from conservativism and most of them still do.

Let me change the term hawkish to livid anti communist. In the 50s and 60s( until 68) the dems were probably more hawkish. The dems were also anti communist until around 68 but they weren't as rabid about it as the republicans.

I was young too, starting high school, but we lived about an hour from Berkeley............seems to my recollection that the anti-communism seemed to recede slightly after we clearly took the lead in the space race.

Goldwater was an aberration, big government Republicans started with Lincoln. Trivia: Hillary Clinton worked for Goldwater's campaign. She was decades ahead of most Republicans in claiming that she didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left her.

yep, they two party other than there special interest groups were in many ways the same party. Personally, I am glad that the republicans have offered an alternative. Now I hope one of these days they really start acting like an alternative.