May 1st, 2009 at 12:10 am
Souter To Retire
I assume you’ve heard. Not sure I understand why the NYT thinks that replacing Souter “could prove a test of Mr. Obama’s plans for reshaping the nation’s judiciary.” The swing vote on the court will still be Justice Kennedy no matter who Obama picks. Obama will pick someone, and Republicans will either throw an embarrassing and pointless tantrum before losing or else they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object to the replacement of one liberal by another.
51 Responses to “Souter To Retire”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
Here’s a replacement.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:27 am
A.
What do I win?
May 1st, 2009 at 12:30 am
As long as we can make Sean Hannity (and/or David Horowitz) think it’s gonna be Ward Churchill or Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, there could be solid entertainment value here.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:33 am
As long as we can make Sean Hannity (and/or David Horowitz) think it’s gonna be Ward Churchill or Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, there could be solid entertainment value here.
Don’t be absurd. With only one woman on the Court Bernadine Dohrn is the obvious pick.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:33 am
Clearly, the only reliable way for Obama to keep Broder et al happy is to name Eugene Scalia, former Solicitor for the Department Of Labor.
Or maybe Monica Goodling.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:39 am
Could Obama do a joint nomination of all of ACORN?
May 1st, 2009 at 12:39 am
…they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense…
When did that ever stop Republicans?
May 1st, 2009 at 12:45 am
So, Arlen Specter would come in handy right about now, being on the Judiciary Committee and all. Maybe this will help Harry Reid tell Tom Harkin and Barbara Mikulski to stuff it about Specter jumping the seniority line.
Meanwhile, I hope Obama at least floats the idea of Neal Katyal as a candidate. A little more of the pro-torture crowd expressing their opinion never hurts Obama.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:46 am
I have no doubt that Obama will appoint an excellent, capable replacement for Justice Souter. However, I am sad to see him go. Despite being nominated by GHW Bush, Souter has been one of the great, perhaps THE great civil libertarian on the Court during his tenure. He has written numerous influential opinions defending the rights of criminal defendants that will live on long after his departure. His influence goes well beyond merely his voting record; Souter was a true scholar. He will be missed.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:49 am
I can’t imagine the Republicans laying down on this. They voted 100% against his budget – even the R’s in districts Obama won handily. This rump party is not going to go for option A.
And I’m just fine with that.
—
I do think a second woman on the court would be a good thing.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:53 am
Oh, yeah, they also voted pretty strongly against Sebelius in the middle of a public health crisis without any substantive reason that she can’t do the job.
Ideology trumps allowing a Prez to have the cabinet he desires. At least the Dems had the sense to accept Bush’s HHS nominee.
So, again, sorry Matty, I don’t believe the Party of No is done with their tantrum.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:06 am
Republicans will either throw an embarrassing and pointless tantrum before losing or else they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object to the replacement of one liberal by another.
Sheesh, I expect beter even from Matt. Enough mistatements of fact to be a piece out of wingnuttia. First, Souter is NOT a liberal, nor is there any genuine liberal currently on the Court, despite the typically ignorant MSM portrayal of conservative and liberal wings on the Court. There is an extreme right wing, Federalist Society bloc, a moderate to center right bloc (which appears “liberal” only in contrast) and an extremely conservative Kennedy in the middle. If you knew much about Justices named Douglas, Black, Brennan, Warren, Marshall (Thurgood), or Fortas, you’d realize this. Second, and most unfortunately, the chance that Obama will nominate a real liberal is as about remote as chances that he would propose single payer health care. An extreme moderate is about he best we can hope for, and we may get worse (Cass Sunstein, anyone?).
Finally, if you think the Rethugs are necessarily playing a losing hand, or will give up without much of a fight, you really have not been paying attention. Both the party and the Senate caucus are pretty much down to the loony True Believers and this is their chance to make political hay. If Obama nominates Robert Bork, or the love child of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill who graduated from Liberty University Law with impeccable wingnut credentials, he/she will nonetheless be portrayed as a Leninist set to further the collectivization of America. I doubt there are a half dozen potentially persuadable Rethug senators regardlee of who Obama nominates (maybe Snowe, Collins, Lugar and couple of others) and the pressure on them will be intense. If the nominee could even arguably be described as liberal by rational people, I doubt there would be a single Republican vote to be had. Even if the 59 ostensible Democrats hold firm (a very big if), 40 Rethus are enough to block a nomination as long as Franken is not seated. Since I expect Pawlenty to refuse to sign a certification of Franken’s election, even if ordered to do so by the state courts, as long as Coleman keeps appealing (federal court, the Senate of the Galactic Republic, the Jedi Council?), this could be a very long time.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:09 am
RON PAUL!!!!!!
(heheheh, only kidding.)
May 1st, 2009 at 1:13 am
CLEARLY U SHEEPLE R IGNORING THE 1 LAST CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT IN AMERICA!!!!!!
I REFER OF COURSE 2 CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP SHEEPLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 1st, 2009 at 1:14 am
dammit…
May 1st, 2009 at 1:31 am
Re: I do think a second woman on the court would be a good thing.
Great! Let’s choose Mary Ann Glendon. A great intellectual, a great legal scholar, a great defender of justice and virtue, and a casual acquaintance of one of my best friends.
Or is having a woman on the court less important than having another advocate of the culture of death?
May 1st, 2009 at 1:33 am
Republicans will fight. Not for its own sake, but because a big part of what remains of their shrinking base elected them because they hoped Republicans could deliver conservative justices that will overturn Roe v Wade.
If Republicans don’t at least make a scene, we really will see one party rule.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:48 am
The swing vote on the court will still be Justice Kennedy no matter who Obama picks.
Yes, but Kennedy is in his 70s as is Scalia and Ginsberg and Breyer. Stevens is pushing 90. The people Obama names may well serve on the court for 30 years.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:05 am
Heck. If we are going to make random ,pointless guesses about his replacement , i would say that he will pick one of the Clintons. I am not being sarcastic either. I do not like either of them. But there are too many political advantages for him not to consider it . And no one can tell me that either one woud not give their right arm to be a Justice.
And considering all of the nice things the republicans said about Mrs. Clinton AFTER Obama defeated her. I think the republicanswould have a hard time opposing her.
I hope this does not happen .But it is not, as crazy a scenario as it sounds.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:30 am
Pete,
They’re too old, you want people in the early 50s at the most
May 1st, 2009 at 2:36 am
I wouldn’t be so blase about this. If Obama nominates someone that the Blue Dogs decide is “too liberal,” (thoughtfully and regretfully, of course), he may have a real fight on his hands. No question he won’t get a single Republican vote, and I think a filibuster could actually be successful. Hopefully his team will make sure all the Dems are in agreement in advance, and we won’t see any posturing at the last minute.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:40 am
For what it’s worth I would love to see Nat Hentoff as a Justice.It will never happen of course.
I know this will not go over well on this blog. But i would like for Obama to pick an open minded person who believes in freedom and is willing to judge each case on it’s merits.
Not every case has a “liberal” side or a “conservative ” side to it.Nor should they.This should not be about “stacking” the court one way or the other.
There is no “liberal ” freedom of speech .Nor is there a “conservative ” freedom of speech.There is freedom of speech for us all.
We will hear a lot about abortion the next few days. But will we hear about the First Ammendment ?
I know many people have strong feelings about abortion,and i do not deny that it is an important isssue. But from the way the confirmation hearings usally go , you would assume that the entire Constitution is about abortion.
I hope we can have a honest discussion in this country about what the Constitution realy means.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:44 am
Glendon is a reactionary theocrat who has no understanding of the lives of most american women.
A woman would be good, but it would have to be a woman who sides with the american people and against nutty religious right theology.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:20 am
Why not Glendon?
God knows we could use another apologist for a child molesting criminal conspiracy on the Supreme Court…
May 1st, 2009 at 7:13 am
I generally agree, but it would actually be possible to replace Souter with someone more liberal and since Republicans will oppose anybody who Obama could pick I see no reason for Obama not to find a real lefty. The swing vote may be Kennedy now, but that may change so picking a liberal is a great idea.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:23 am
It will be either Kagan or Sullivan unless Obama decides to go Asian/Hispanic.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:51 am
Republicans will either throw an embarrassing and pointless tantrum before losing or else they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object
Huh? The minority party always objects to Supreme Court nominations. It’s a time-honored tradition. Remember Ted Kennedy’s weird witchhunt about the “Concerned Alumni of Princeton” during Alito’s confirmation?
May 1st, 2009 at 7:55 am
I’ll put $10 on Sonia Sotomayor.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am
Huh? The minority party always objects to Supreme Court nominations.
Huh?
Scalia? Roberts? Breyer went through pretty smoothly.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:10 am
There is no shortage of highly-qualified women Obama could pick: Elena Kagan, Kathleen Sullivan, Sonia Sotomayor, Diane Wood, and Leah Sears come to mind. I’d actually put my money on Wood: she is incredibly well-qualified, the GOP will end up looking like idiots trying to oppose her, and due to her age this is probably her best, maybe only, chance.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:15 am
Umm, I’m thinking tantrum, just off the top of my head.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:17 am
” If we are going to make random ,pointless guesses about his replacement , i would say that he will pick one of the Clintons. ”
Obama can’t pick Bill Clinton. Not a good idea to pick a disbarred lawyer to the Supreme Court.
I agree about Hillary Clinton. Politically it makes sense on about half a dozen levels, and she probably wouldn’t be a bad justice.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:20 am
Hillary’s got a job.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:23 am
That he will pick a woman seems a foregone conclusion. This is sad, not because it isn’t good – indeed, best – to have a not-so-gender-unbalanced court, but because womens’ march FROM the workplace over 20 years has left the court as absurdly unbalanced as it is today, forcing Obama’s hand, and has left fewer qualified female candidates than there should be (not that there aren’t still many, many).
Fuck womens’ mass abandonment of the workplace. Fuck it.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:24 am
I always take the same position on SC nominations: Derrick Bell, Catherine MacKinnon, or nobody.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:25 am
YES I KNOW THE APOSTROPHE IS IN THE WRONG PLACE
May 1st, 2009 at 8:31 am
MoDo FTW!!!!
Greatest opinions ever.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:53 am
or else they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object to the replacement of one liberal by another.
Is that before or after the pigs fly out of my ass?
I’ll take the long shot bet with Elena Kagan.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am
Re Mark
Cathrine MacKinnon? Mr. Mark has to be joking. Ms. MacKinnon is a nutcase who thinks that pornography is equivalent to rape.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:02 am
Any thoughts on this post?
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/specter-defection-will-haunt-dems-on.html
May 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Yeah hopefully the Republicans instead show deference to the President and his picks for the court…. you know, like Obama did as a Senator…
May 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
I love how when Democrats complain about Republican judicial appointments it is “rational” and when it is the other way around it is “throwing a tantrum”. Double standards all around these days.
That said, given that we threw a fit over all the judical hold you guys put up over the last 8 years, as well we should, I do hope that the confirmation hearings are as contentious as the Roberts hearings or less (assuming of course that Obama nominates someone qualified and not overly controversial which I will assume he will.) It would be nice to see SOMEONE play an issue the same way from both sides. So far the Dems have done lots of stuff they complained about during Bush, and the Rs have complained about a lot of stuff they did. Though oddly only the Rs have gotten widespread claims of hypocrisy.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:04 am
Oh, yeah, those Roberts hearings. What a bloodbath.
Oh, yeah, those holds on judicial nominees. Both of them.
Poor Republicans, the Democrats were such obstructionist meanies.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am
Hans- not sure how credible that reading of the rule is. No Dem on the committee voted for Alito (though I can’t find a “cloture” vote).
Jason- “deference” and “blind acceptance” aren’t the same thing. The Republicans are free to vote against Obama’s nominee, they just shouldn’t expect to get their own guy in there. Elections have consequences.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am
Yeah hopefully the Republicans instead show deference to the President and his picks for the court…. you know, like Obama did as a Senator…
You should probably check out the (perhaps only ever) diary Obama did on DKos, which was to defend Russ Feingold’s vote for one of the justices against the howling netroots mob demanding his head for doing so. It’s a very eloquent explanation of why things like that aren’t just black and white, regardless of people like yourself.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
I know you’re a troll, JD, but do you approve of the Roberts Court? Roberts has turned the Supreme Court into a fully partisan entity, which breaks it. Or have the 4 conservatives NOT voted in bloc on something?
All SCOTUS cases are decided by Anthony Kennedy and no one else. That demolishes the idea of the court.
MoDo, OTOH, would use her supreme rational capabilities to govern the nation.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am
I find it interesting that I say that, in light of the fact that Republicans did not like having their judges held up that we should try to be nice to your guys and I am a “troll”. As I said, assuming that your man Obama nominates a respectable choice, which I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he will, we should give him at least as much deference as was given to Roberts. This is about as gererous and resonable a position as anyone can really take with respect to their ideoligical opponents. If you think THIS counts as trolling you are beyond hope of actual discussions.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
[...] more carefully about what I wrote last night it is worth emphasizing that neither David Souter nor any of the other current Supreme Court [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I’m not calling you a troll because you want civility, I’m calling you a troll… because you’re a troll.
Do you not think you’re a troll? I mean, if you find yourself constantly agreeing with Al…
And while I’m sure that Republican complaints will come mainly from Bachmann and the like, it would be really nice to have robust congressional scrutiny on SCOTUS nominees. I think Roberts was underqualified with numerous ethical question marks, and has poorly run the court.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Luke,
Please learn to argue. ‘I’m calling you a troll… because you’re a troll’ is not an arguement, it is a meaningless assertion. That I am a troll is neither tautological nor self-evident.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
[...] • Matt Yglesias predicts that “Republicans will either throw an embarrassing and pointless tantrum before losing or else they’ll calmly accept that it makes no sense for a small and unpopular minority to object to the replacement of one liberal by another.” [Think Progress] [...]