Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill.

Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed "well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term."

His announcement had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36317045/ns/politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

April 9, 2010

My dear Mr. President:

Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court's next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 D.S.C. GE 371(b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.

Most respectfully yours,

John Paul Stevens

Let the venom spewing begin from both sides.

I fully expect Obama to put a pretty left-leaning judge up this time. He went in the middle with his first appointment. Sotamayor will look like Scalia when you compare her to his next appointment.

Sotomayor was an easy pick for the first one - pretty mainstream in most cases and not very objectionable by the opposition (someone's always going to object and be upset about it, but what can you do?). This next pick, however, could get nasty depending on who they go with. With an election coming up in November, that will make the type of pick they go with (a middle of the road vanilla judge versus a more controversial one) interesting to watch.

GannonFan wrote:Sotomayor was an easy pick for the first one - pretty mainstream in most cases and not very objectionable by the opposition (someone's always going to object and be upset about it, but what can you do?). This next pick, however, could get nasty depending on who they go with. With an election coming up in November, that will make the type of pick they go with (a middle of the road vanilla judge versus a more controversial one) interesting to watch.

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.

A sad day for America.

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

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Sotomayor was an easy pick for the first one - pretty mainstream in most cases and not very objectionable by the opposition (someone's always going to object and be upset about it, but what can you do?). This next pick, however, could get nasty depending on who they go with. With an election coming up in November, that will make the type of pick they go with (a middle of the road vanilla judge versus a more controversial one) interesting to watch.

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.

Why not? Sotomayor made it clear that she believes it is the prerogative of the judiciary to make policy. She breezed through.

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Sotomayor was an easy pick for the first one - pretty mainstream in most cases and not very objectionable by the opposition (someone's always going to object and be upset about it, but what can you do?). This next pick, however, could get nasty depending on who they go with. With an election coming up in November, that will make the type of pick they go with (a middle of the road vanilla judge versus a more controversial one) interesting to watch.

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.

Obama needs to appoint a left-leaning judge - the balance on the court already tilts to far to the right.

A lefty is needed as well, as Gannon Fan points out, to keep the faith of the base.

dbackjon wrote:Obama needs to appoint a left-leaning judge - the balance on the court already tilts to far to the right.

This is the problem, the judicial system shouldn't lean one way or the other. Judges should not be nominated because they have liberal or conservative tendencies, they should be nominated because they are balanced. Their morals, ideals, lifestyle, etc should have no impact on the way the rule. The judicial branch should not be considered a political entity, yet in recent history, congress and presidents treat it as one.

JMU DJ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Obama needs to appoint a left-leaning judge - the balance on the court already tilts to far to the right.

This is the problem, the judicial system shouldn't lean one way or the other. Judges should not be nominated because they have liberal or conservative tendencies, they should be nominated because they are balanced. Their morals, ideals, lifestyle, etc should have no impact on the way the rule. The judicial branch should not be considered a political entity, yet in recent history, congress and presidents treat it as one.

Spot-on post...

Col Hogan wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:




This is the problem, the judicial system shouldn't lean one way or the other. Judges should not be nominated because they have liberal or conservative tendencies, they should be nominated because they are balanced. Their morals, ideals, lifestyle, etc should have no impact on the way the rule. The judicial branch should not be considered a political entity, yet in recent history, congress and presidents treat it as one.

Spot-on post...

And that problem eminates both sides of the aisle.

Col Hogan wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:




This is the problem, the judicial system shouldn't lean one way or the other. Judges should not be nominated because they have liberal or conservative tendencies, they should be nominated because they are balanced. Their morals, ideals, lifestyle, etc should have no impact on the way the rule. The judicial branch should not be considered a political entity, yet in recent history, congress and presidents treat it as one.

Spot-on post...

Agreed - but with the four FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT Activist judges on the bench now, we need a counter to them.

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

Spot-on post...

Agreed - but with the four FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT Activist judges on the bench now, we need a counter to them.

I tend to agree with this also. Theoretically speaking, if you have 4 right, 4 left and 1 centrist, the Court should be a Centrist court, with the 1 centrist being the deciding vote.

Right now we have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as the clear right-leaning judges.
On the left we have Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and what used to be Stevens.

Kennedy as the swing-vote.

Sotomayor isn't nearly as left-leaning as the 4 right-leaning judges are to the right and therefore if you add another centrist to the Bench the balance of power undoubtedly goes to Scalia's crew.

That's why I think Obama will be try and put someone up that will be left of Sotomayor.

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

Spot-on post...

Agreed - but with the four FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT Activist judges on the bench now, we need a counter to them.

What exactly qualifies them as activist? It seems to me that they are generally strict constructionists.

CitadelGrad wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Agreed - but with the four FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT Activist judges on the bench now, we need a counter to them.

What exactly qualifies them as activist? It seems to me that they are generally strict constructionists.

Their willingness to overturn decades of precedence, overreaching allowance of personal viewpoints (especially Scalia), etc.

dbackjon wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
What exactly qualifies them as activist? It seems to me that they are generally strict constructionists.

Their willingness to overturn decades of precedence, overreaching allowance of personal viewpoints (especially Scalia), etc.

Precedent doesn't trump the original intent of the Constitution. If they are overturning activist precedent, then more power to them. Exactly how have they (especially Scalia) allowed their personal viewpoints to affect their judicial opinions?

dbackjon wrote:A sad day for America.

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

CitadelGrad wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Agreed - but with the four FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT Activist judges on the bench now, we need a counter to them.

What exactly qualifies them as activist? It seems to me that they are generally strict constructionists.

CitGrad, shame on you.
Gotta do better than that. You know that adhering to the tenets of the Constitution is the epitome of radical right-wing philosophy.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:A sad day for America.

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

It probably happened before the best part of you leaked down your daddy's leg, allan, but Steven's was considered to be a center-right appointment when he was appointed by Gerald Ford and confirmed with acclamation from both sides.

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

It probably happened before the best part of you leaked down your daddy's leg, allan, but Steven's was considered to be a center-right appointment when he was appointed by Gerald Ford and confirmed with acclamation from both sides.

What does that have to do with how he decided cases? I'm curious, as I've seen you post this in two threads. I don't see how his appointment being welcomed by both sides in the 70s justifies (one way or the other) whether he was "one of the best ever."

The key word in your post, I believe is, "was."

ASUMountaineer wrote:

houndawg wrote:
It probably happened before the best part of you leaked down your daddy's leg, allan, but Steven's was considered to be a center-right appointment when he was appointed by Gerald Ford and confirmed with acclamation from both sides.

What does that have to do with how he decided cases? I'm curious, as I've seen you post this in two threads. I don't see how his appointment being welcomed by both sides in the 70s justifies (one way or the other) whether he was "one of the best ever."

The key word in your post, I believe is, "was."

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

JMU DJ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Obama needs to appoint a left-leaning judge - the balance on the court already tilts to far to the right.

This is the problem, the judicial system shouldn't lean one way or the other. Judges should not be nominated because they have liberal or conservative tendencies, they should be nominated because they are balanced. Their morals, ideals, lifestyle, etc should have no impact on the way the rule. The judicial branch should not be considered a political entity, yet in recent history, congress and presidents treat it as one.

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

UNHWildCats wrote: 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?

houndawg wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
What does that have to do with how he decided cases? I'm curious, as I've seen you post this in two threads. I don't see how his appointment being welcomed by both sides in the 70s justifies (one way or the other) whether he was "one of the best ever."

The key word in your post, I believe is, "was."

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?"