Patterico's Pontifications

4/9/2010

Justice Stevens to Retire

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:38 pm



Not a surprise and only mildly depressing. Losing the most liberal justice for a younger version is what the voters bargained for in 2008. The real bad news comes when we lose someone like Scalia. Hopefully that will be several years down the road.

Figure out which is the next minority group Obama owes, and you’ll have your pick.

83 Responses to “Justice Stevens to Retire”

  1. Zombie-Americans are underrepresented on the court.
    /sarc

    Jon (8e1d62)

  2. Figure out which is the next minority group he owes, and you’ll have your pick.

    so he’s going to pick a conservative? 😀

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  3. “Figure out which is the next minority group he owes, and you’ll have your pick. ”

    I’d rather Obama use a different formula: which pick will maximize the socially inappropriate prejudice from the opposition.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  4. Another asspull from dimwit. All that will do is give you clowns an excuse to claim someone is a racist, bigot, sexist … whatever ist or ism is appropriate. It matters very little what the opposition is, you will just claim it is due to and -ist or -ism. It is what your ilk does.

    JD (3f3e6c)

  5. I hope Steven has a nice retirement. What happened to all that talk of using the Kelo decision to seize his retirement home?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  6. I expect we will see another marginally qualified seat-warmer appointment from Obama much like Sotomayor.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. I think it’s hard to couch any Supreme Court Justice as a “marginally qualified seat-warmer” – whether or not I agree with their decisions, they seem a uniformly intelligent bunch (even if they make the occasional dumb remark about being a wise Latina).

    Congress is another story. A far less intelligent story, I would say.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  8. Since he took care of “female” (they are a minority; right?) and “hispanic” in one pull — with the “wise Latina” — it must be time for a black leftist.

    What’s Cornel West up to, these days?

    Icy Texan (67ae07)

  9. …the socially inappropriate prejudice…

    as opposed to “socially appropriate prejudice” you and others like you display on a daily basis, eh?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  10. That’s a good read there, redc1c4. It stands to reason that if there is “socially inappropriate prejudice”, there must conversely be a “socially appropriate prejudice”.

    For example, all of the anti-feminist anti-female vitriol spewed at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by “progressive” Obama supporters in ’08.

    Icy Texan (67ae07)

  11. Perhaps Elena Kagan is the choice so she can join the other justices with elementary school educations in NYC:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
    Sonia Maria Sotomayor; and
    Antonin Scalia

    Ira (28a423)

  12. “as opposed to “socially appropriate prejudice” you and others like you display on a daily basis, eh?”

    I think a lot of people are still ok with making fun of, say, fat people, or latte-sipping volvo-driving east coast liberals. Prejudices like that don’t have same the kind of social opprobrium as racism or sexism.

    imdw (f6a9f8)

  13. […] Patterico’s Pontifications: Justice Stevens to Retire: Not a surprise and only mildly depressing. Losing the most liberal justice for a younger version is […]

    Liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, Nearly 90, Announces His Upcoming Retirement… Could Be Problematic for Democrats At This Time « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  14. Prejudices like that don’t have same the kind of social opprobrium as racism or sexism.

    so that makes them ok? what a lovely world you live in….the concept of “acceptable discrimination” is an interesting one, coming from the folxs that claim “discrimination” and “prejudice” are intrinsically evil. i guess it is all in the definitions, as well as the beholder. where i come from that’s known as hypocrisy.

    for the record, as Patterico can attest, i am well fed, and i’ve had that fact used against me when engaged in impromptu public discussions with your kind…
    of course, it stops when i point out that i am indeed fat, but that you’re stupid, and i can diet. 😀

    HTH. HAND. GPS.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  15. I thought Althouse’s posit was interesting: since the court has addressed race/ethnicity and gender (as evidenced in the mix), shouldn’t the next aspect of diversity addressed be religion? If we’re going to lend such weight to diversity, this would seem to have been neglected.

    “Religion is an even more important aspect of diversity, since it resides in the human mind, and it is the mind that will be making the decisions that bind us.

    It’s odd how the problem has gone without notice until we are at the point where the Supreme Court will be composed entirely of Catholic and Jewish Justices. It does seem quite wrong to look at the short list of potential nominees and disqualify the very impressive candidates who are not Protestant. That seems like outright discrimination. But why is giving preference to a Protestant any different from going after a female/Hispanic candidate, as President Obama did with the last appointment?”

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  16. I’m putting 10 USD on a female/transgender/gay male Jewish person.

    jakee308 (ecc95d)

  17. The real bad news comes when we lose someone like Scalia. Hopefully that will be several years down the road.

    Nino, two requests.

    1. Stop smoking. (Unlikely to make a difference at this point, so this will be the less important one.)
    2. LOSE WEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Alan (07ccb5)

  18. “I think a lot of people are still ok with making fun of, say, fat people”

    imdw – Is that what they teach in “fat studies” courses on campus these days?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  19. “so that makes them ok?”

    In a normative sense? Not so much. In a descriptive sense? Yes they’re less likely to lead to social opprobrium directed at the person making the prejudiced statement.

    “It’s odd how the problem has gone without notice until we are at the point where the Supreme Court will be composed entirely of Catholic and Jewish Justices. It does seem quite wrong to look at the short list of potential nominees and disqualify the very impressive candidates who are not Protestant. That seems like outright discrimination. But why is giving preference to a Protestant any different from going after a female/Hispanic candidate, as President Obama did with the last appointment?””

    Have we ever had an atheist Justice? Prejudice against atheist people isn’t quite as unacceptable as other prejudices.

    imdw (d3ef34)

  20. I think a lot of people are still ok with making fun of, say, fat people, or latte-sipping volvo-driving east coast liberals. Prejudices like that don’t have same the kind of social opprobrium as racism or sexism.

    The drawback is that the jokes aren’t as funny, “Babes” (R.I.P.) notwithstanding.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  21. I see Janet N. is (possibly) on the short list. Doesn’t she cover two minorities?

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  22. “imdw – Is that what they teach in “fat studies” courses on campus these days?”

    I wouldn’t know. I don’t think you need a special studies course to make the observation though.

    imdw (017d51)

  23. “Figure out which is the next minority group Obama owes, and you’ll have your pick.”

    Finally you seem to be getting it. The problem is, that once ‘minorities’ are in the (overwhelming) majority, there won’t be any crumbs for the folks that created America — whites.

    a concerned conservative (2230b0)

  24. You forgot “Christian” again. It is concerned Christian conservative. Also, lifetime Republican that never voted for a Dem until President Bush.

    JD (3f3e6c)

  25. “folks that created America — whites.”

    McDonnel recently forgot about some folks. Came out looking like a real asshole.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (3ddf03)

  26. It’s not going to be Janet. If it’s Janet, then we get to see “the system worked” replayed over and over again, reminding the American people of another reason to hate this administration. Obama knows this.

    His policies may be as good for this country as heart disease, but he’s not stupid. Nominating Napolitano would be stupid, because he knows it would damage him unnecessarily. He could get someone just as left-wing (or even more so) without suffering the damage he’d get from putting Napolitano back in the headlines.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  27. Hugh Hewitt is speculating that it will be Devall Patrick, since Patrick is in a heap of trouble – having the insurance market close down is not going to do him any favors – with an uncertain re-election this Fall.

    AD - RtR/OS! (4a3dc0)

  28. Kagan or Woods will get 80 votes. Holder will get a filibuster. Sunstein will get a “huh?” and some folks wondering who’s side he’s on anyway.

    Hey, how about Hillary?

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  29. 21.I see Janet N. is (possibly) on the short list. Doesn’t she cover two minorities?
    Comment by PatAZ — 4/9/2010 @ 7:37 pm

    — Unlike the glut of lefty Hollywood types that think it mandatory to declare their sexuality to the world, Napolitano has never done so. It is possibly the only area of public life and “service” where she has shown restraint.

    What’s the 2nd aspect of her that is “minority”? Because, if “stupid” is now considered a protected class, then this is another statistic (along with the inconvenient truth that the US is 51% female, 49% male) where the sad reality is that more people fall ABOVE that particular dividing line than below it.

    Icy Texan (665e90)

  30. I wonder if the GOP is going to be asking their dumb Health care questions.

    imdw (1635c7)

  31. It is very important that dimwit and its ilk on the left that they continue to brand any ideological opposition as stupid.

    JD (3f3e6c)

  32. “It is very important that dimwit and its ilk on the left that they continue to brand any ideological opposition as stupid.”

    There’ a couple of types of stupid going on. There’s the part that wasn’t opposed when they proposed the same idea not too long ago. That’s one. Then there’s the part that just ignores reasoning and reading and goes for the slogans the extremists have convinced them they must take on. That’s a bit less stupid. The latter I just feel a bit sad for.

    imdw (017d51)

  33. Finally you seem to be getting it. The problem is, that once ‘minorities’ are in the (overwhelming) majority, there won’t be any crumbs for the folks that created America — whites.

    Comment by a concerned conservative — 4/9/2010 @ 8:21 pm

    Thanks for the terrific laugh, which I needed today. JD has it right – the racist liberals can’t even Moby well. Beyond parody.

    Wonder if DRJ or Patterico would be interested in checking that IP. Be mighty fascinating to see if that IP has anything in common w/ any recent posters….

    no one you know (4186cd)

  34. Or Stashiu3. Stashiu?

    no one you know (4186cd)

  35. noyk,

    Doesn’t appear to be a sock of anyone, but as you’re aware, it doesn’t mean they’re a conservative and not a Moby. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  36. Hey Stashiu,
    thanks for checking. That random “conservatives” are just roaming the web able to so quickly add to the discussion here at Patterico’s es muy interesante, no?

    no one you know (4186cd)

  37. Hey, imdw? How is that extensive explanation of that Health care bill coming? Since you are so smart and hard working and all?

    Nice threadjack, though. That’s what trolls do.

    Eric Blair (e58b12)

  38. Why replicate the excellent work of CRS?

    imdw (017d51)

  39. Again, troll, you don’t know very much at all—other than cheerleading for the D. You fool no one. It’s sad more than merely irritating.

    Eric Blair (e58b12)

  40. Icy: You are right. Women are no longer a minority, but don’t they claim minority status? And it was wrong of me to imply the other. She remains above the fray on that point.

    “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  41. There are a lot of contexts in which women are a minority. Like law firm partnerships or the supreme court.This likely has real effects. It’s not hard to imagine a woman having a hard time signing on to the paternalism in Gonzales v. Carhart, for example.

    But for you commerce clause fans — think about what that case was. That was congress prohibiting a specific medical procedure. You think about that when you think about congress’s power to pass health care reform.

    imdw (6b4e5c)

  42. I agree, the ban was unconstitutional, for the reason hinted at by Justice Thomas.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  43. Again, imdw: go take a break and write a long, long essay. Please.

    Because so much of what you post is partisan snark.

    Think about it.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  44. “I agree, the ban was unconstitutional, for the reason hinted at by Justice Thomas.”

    Though he conveniently, for the paternalists, signed on to the majority. Thus get gets to be ultra pure and above-it-all while still telling women he knows what’s good for them.

    imdw (603c39)

  45. There’ a couple of types of stupid going on.

    and our resident SME on “stupid” would know… except s/he/it neglected to mention their own unique brand of idiocy in their hip pocket review.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  46. If you’re going to accuse someone of hypocrisy, you jerk, then don’t put your own ignorance into the mix. The commerce-clause issue was not raised by the parties, nor was it addressed by the lower courts in that case.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  47. Thus get gets to be ultra pure…

    code words for “trying to be white”….. i denounce your racism.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  48. “The commerce-clause issue was not raised by the parties, nor was it addressed by the lower courts in that case.”

    Oh I read his concurrence. Now why do you think nobody even raised it, not even the paternalists in congress all worried about the constitutionality of health care regulation?

    imdw (ae74ee)

  49. Objection, relevance?

    As you concede, nobody raised the issue. Since the issue was not put before the Court, how can you accuse Thomas of hypocrisy for not reaching out and deciding an issue that the parties–including obviously the challenger–didn’t want addressed?

    Idiot.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  50. Hey, Alan: welcome to the bridge under which we find this particular troll.

    Do you honestly think that this character has actuallyread his concurrence“? I mean, outside DU, DK, or Wikipedia entries? Truly?

    This person isn’t an idiot. Just a partisan troll full of snark. I think he is very worried about losing his Hope and Change (not to mention the polls, 2010, and 2012), so he needs to act out toward those nasty old Republicans.

    Still, these people sometimes have interesting ideas. But it would take some time for such a person to write them up and think it over. It’s easier just to snark.

    But maybe he will write a thoughtful essay. Still, look at the history of posts by imdw. It’s not hopeful.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  51. I wasn’t sure if he’d read the concurrence. There’s no excuse not to; the damn thing is impressively short.

    But by saying that, I’m probably again falling into the trap you warned me about, the trap of thinking about the issue solely in terms of whether or not he’s being serious, when in fact, as you indicate, it’s more likely that he’s writing with snark in lieu of sincerity, to provoke rather than to debate. (Rather like Hax Vobiscum constantly did, as evidenced by his–Hax’s–impressively consistent refusal to address evidence that contradicted his own arguments.)

    I guess I did overlook what should have been an obvious point. So thank you for bringing me back down to Earth on that one.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  52. “Do you honestly think that this character has actually “read his concurrence“? I mean, outside DU, DK, or Wikipedia entries? Truly?”

    It’s really short. Go read it. You’ll probably get mad if I post it here, or call it plagiarism or something.

    Wikipedia doesn’t have full text SCOTUS opinions, but usually has links to the full text as well as other useful links and material on opinions. I recommend it as a starting point to getting into constitutional decisions because of this. Maybe you’re more of a fan of conservapedia? I read that one occasionally too.

    “This person isn’t an idiot. Just a partisan troll full of snark. ”

    This is funny, given how easy it was for you to check on how simple the concurrence is.

    “Since the issue was not put before the Court, how can you accuse Thomas of hypocrisy for not reaching out and deciding an issue that the parties–including obviously the challenger–didn’t want addressed?”

    I didn’t say he was a hypocrite. I say he got to play above it all but still help the paternalists along. Why did his concurrence mention an issue that wasn’t even briefed or at issue?

    imdw (19cd35)

  53. You said:

    Though he conveniently, for the paternalists, signed on to the majority. Thus get gets to be ultra pure and above-it-all while still telling women he knows what’s good for them.

    Thus, you were in fact accusing Thomas of hypocrisy.

    And now you’ve blatantly lied about it, by now pretending you made no such accusation.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  54. I say he got to play above it all but still help the paternalists along.

    Ah–play above it all. In other words, pretend to be above it all, but not actually be above it all, because he’s “help[ing] the paternalists”–so now you’re even reiterating your accusation of hypocrisy in the same comment as you’re denying having made the accusation.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  55. There’ a couple of types of stupid going on.

    As always, excellent point – and that typo at the begining just adds to your hilarity.

    Dmac (21311c)

  56. That’s a good point Alan. Thinking more about Thomas, he’s likely not playing at pure, but sincerely sees himself that way. Nothing like a good Thomas dissent.

    imdw (1e3254)

  57. “Thinking more about Thomas…”

    Or pretending to.

    GeneralMalaise (268cf5)

  58. Notice how imdw tries to deflect and make other people do work? And throw in yet more snark? Hallmarks of a troll. And again, not a surprise, given his long and disingenuous history of posting here.

    Eric Blair (6ac614)

  59. Whatever. To steal a phrase from Dennis Miller, you’re more full of crap than a whale with no ass. I’m not even going to bother spending more time thinking about the garbage you just put up here. Except to say that you’re very intellectually dishonest, and very bad at covering it up, for the reasons I’ve given above. And to steal a line from Kevin Spacey in Swimming with Sharks, if you were in my toilet bowl I wouldn’t bother flushing it.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  60. .

    > Figure out which is the next minority group Obama owes, and you’ll have your pick.

    Two words:

    “Gay Polynesians”

    A two-fer.

    .

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  61. Next I ask Eric and Alan what they thought about Thomas’ separate opinion in Citizens United. The one no-one else agreed with. Have you read that one Eric? Isn’t Thomas at his best when it’s 8-1 against him?

    imdw (8bb494)

  62. > Zombie-Americans are underrepresented on the court.

    Surely you don’t believe that.

    I mean, don’t we have enough Leftist and Green representation in every branch?

    Far, far too much, even?

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  63. > imdw – Is that what they teach in “fat studies” courses on campus these days?

    daley, they don’t have those on campus these days. They’ve aimed higher.

    Yes, indeed, it’s hard to get through a single semester any more without including one or two courses in fathead studies…

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  64. So, that’s how imadickwad got credentialed?

    AD - RtR/OS! (c8e2b4)

  65. According to Instapundit, both Woods and Garland are awful on the 2nd Amendment. I would expect Republicans to probe on guns the way Dems probe on abortion. After all, arms are an enumerated right.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  66. “According to Instapundit, both Woods and Garland are awful on the 2nd Amendment. I would expect Republicans to probe on guns the way Dems probe on abortion. After all, arms are an enumerated right.”

    Are folks expecting any gun cases besides the incorporation of Heller?

    imdw (e66d8d)

  67. Ah, a quick review of the comments posted calls to mind a favorite Wordsworth quote: “The imdw is too much with us..” (or something like that.)

    elissa (42e91d)

  68. Are folks expecting any gun cases besides the incorporation of Heller?

    After incorporation, the various and sundry gun-control/registration/retrictionist laws extant in the Several States, will be challenged in courts throughout the land, with a great many of those cases ending up at SCOTUS for final jurisdiction.

    Short answer: Yes!

    AD - RtR/OS! (c8e2b4)

  69. And he still doesn’t get it, elissa. But we know his game, of course. And it is a game.

    Eric Blair (801dd5)

  70. It surely is; why, you can almost hear one hand clapping.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c8e2b4)

  71. imdw:

    You recently dragged my job into a discussion of the Erickson comments. You are now in moderation until you apologize for that and promise not to do it again. Your comments will still be approved, but only if they leave real-world attacks on me out of the discussion. There may be a delay as they will have to be pulled out of moderation. A sincere apology and promise not to repeat this behavior is the best way to avoid a delay in your comments being posted.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  72. Much too generous, Mr. Frey.

    GeneralMalaise (268cf5)

  73. He should apologize to DRJ as well, IMO. DRJ actually has attempted on numerous occasions to engage the Troll, yet was insulted the last time for no other reason except that she exists.

    Dmac (21311c)

  74. So I went over to the Erickson comments, and couldn’t find anything. I’m guessing that means that Patterico correctly deleted that.

    I mean, Patterico is pretty clear on that topic.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  75. “After incorporation, the various and sundry gun-control/registration/retrictionist laws extant in the Several States, will be challenged in courts throughout the land, with a great many of those cases ending up at SCOTUS for final jurisdiction.”

    I would think they would just apply Heller.

    “You recently dragged my job into a discussion of the Erickson comments”

    Sorry.

    [There’s the apology — and a very sincere one it was, too! Now I am waiting on the promise not to do it again. — P]

    imdw (603c39)

  76. Did imdw insult DRJ? If so, I missed that. I would like to see that if you can find it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  77. Dmac is probably talking about this imdw comment but it didn’t bother me. It gave me a chance to do my impression of Obama by leaving a 17 minute lecture on M’Culloch vs Maryland.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  78. imdw has been a little snippy lately. The unpopularitly of ObamaCare, poor polling numbers for the Messiah, foreign policy miscues, crappy economic stats, etc., etc., have made life out there tough for a troll.

    daleyrocks (1feed5)

  79. This imdw dude was just speaking Troof to Powder. I think he is just worried, as I have said before, of losing his beloved Hope and Change. Maybe he’ll behave better later? It doesn’t take much.

    And DRJ? That was another funny line. Good one.

    Eric Blair (db7f40)

  80. I was thinking the same way, daley.

    Eric Blair (db7f40)

  81. “It gave me a chance to do my impression of Obama by leaving a 17 minute lecture on M’Culloch vs Maryland.”

    And we were all better for it. Including all the fellas that got to feel gallant.

    imdw (6b4e5c)

  82. [There’s the apology — and a very sincere one it was, too! Now I am waiting on the promise not to do it again. — P]

    Oh just saw this. Won’t do it again.

    imdw (d3ef34)

  83. “[There’s the apology — and a very sincere one it was, too! Now I am waiting on the promise not to do it again. — P]”

    It won’t happen again.

    imdw (4fe3dc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5193 secs.