Is Justice Stevens Retiring?
It certainly appears possible. Jan Crawford Greenburg reports:
Talk about ending the summer with a bang! The AP’s Mark Sherman confirms today that Justice Stevens has only hired one of his four law clerks for next year, which of course is setting off widespread speculation that the 89-year-old senior justice will be leaving the Court at the end of this term.
(Remember it was Mark who reported back in April that Justice Souter hadn’t hired any of his clerks for this year. That story sprung the leak that Souter was, in fact, planning to head home to New Hampshire this summer for good.)
Stevens has shown no signs of slowing down — he’s an active questioner from the bench and appears as engaged as ever. But because of his age — and his wife’s reportedly declining health — Stevens has been the odds-on favorite as the next justice to retire. As Mark points out, he typically hires clerks well in advance — so the fact that he’s only hired one (retired justices get one law clerk, instead of four) could be a signal.
If true, this is no more reason to panic than Souter’s retirement was. Both are among the court’s staunchest liberals. Sotomayor replacing Souter was mostly a wash. On the negative side of the ledger, she is younger, more race conscious, and less bright. On the positive side, she is possibly stronger on criminal justice issues, has a history of mostly non-radical opinions (albeit with at least one glaring exception) . . . and is less bright. Yes, that’s a good thing as well as a bad thing.
Also, she’s not a weirdo who eats apple cores.
Whoever replaces Stevens — if he is retiring — will almost certainly be no more liberal than Stevens. They will be much younger, but that’s what you get when you elect a President.
I predicted Sotomayor, but I can’t handicap this one. Any ideas? The time to speculate is now!
What was the name of the prosecutor that conducted all that misconduct in the Ted Stevens trial?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:40 pmA transgender anarchist.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:41 pmI had no idea that Ayers was a lawyer…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:42 pmBernadine Dohrn.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:43 pmBut on a serious note: Who is that one California SC Justice? The one who seriously can’t tell a Right from a fever dream?
Her.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:43 pmRose Bird?
AD - RtR/OS! (2172ef) — 9/2/2009 @ 11:00 pmIs she still alive?
Geez, anything but that!
I think Obama’s best choice would be Elena Kagan and her appointment as Solicitor General puts her on the path to be a SC nominee. But I’m pulling for Judge Diane Wood because she’s from our alma mater.
DRJ (3f5471) — 9/2/2009 @ 11:15 pmAre there no good Communist lawyers?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/3/2009 @ 12:42 amDRJ – SG Kagan would also go a long, long, long way towards quieting complaining in the gay community over DADT.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 9/3/2009 @ 1:13 amThe single best thing about Sotomayor — at least potentially, and I simply don’t know if this is foreshadowed by her record from the Second Circuit or not — is that she is someone who actually engaged in a litigation practice (even if it was a New York one) and who then presided over a federal district court for a non-trivial amount of time, she ought to be more alert to the importance of writing SCOTUS decisions in a way that will actually be practical and useful when they’re applied in the trial and lower appellate courts.
Obama may feel free to pick another white male to replace Stevens (so long as he’s not another Catholic), and quite possibly an academic. And while that’s not likely to result in different votes than Stevens would have continued to cast, it may well bode ill in terms of likely influence over the Hon. Anthony “Sweet Mysteries of Life” Kennedy, which is what worries the hell out of me. I hate to see Stevens go for that reason alone, but it’s inevitable that it will happen some time well before 2012, and the end of the 2009-2010 term seems likely.
Beldar (e12341) — 9/3/2009 @ 2:21 amFWIW, the white male academic I have in mind is Cass Sunstein.
Beldar (e12341) — 9/3/2009 @ 2:23 amHillary Clinton
gahrie (9d1bb3) — 9/3/2009 @ 3:52 amI predict the next SC appointee will be … not Priscilla Owen.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:02 amSJ:
That would be Carlos Moreno, the only California Supreme Justice to rule in on the Prop 8 challenge that the constitution was unconstitutional. I could see Obama appointing her.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:04 amIt will be a liberal minority from the 9th circus (No, that’s not a misspelling)
GM Roper (6afe02) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:28 amI’ve heard the rumor is that stevens souter and ginsburg have an agreement to retire one per year.
imdw (2d0308) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:48 amI’ve heard that imdw is a disingenuous little twit.
JD (a67da8) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:59 amI thought pam karlan had the right reaction to Gonzales v. Carhart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyLm1lwTYk0
But it will get a lot of people’s panties in a bunch.
imdw (679538) — 9/3/2009 @ 5:15 amI can’t remember her name, but wasn’t there a rabid Gore supporter on the Florida Supreme Court that was a black female? She would be my guess.
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/3/2009 @ 6:44 amThere was discussion on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday and both Chemerinsky and the other guy (Chapman dean) agreed that he was probably not retiring this term. He usually only hires three clerks. If he stays until 2013, he will have served the longest of any USSC justice.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/3/2009 @ 6:45 amLooks like imdw’s panties are still in a Gordian knot of it’s own making. That was some serious beclowning in the other thread, she should check to make sure that red and black greasepaint didn’t form on her face overnight.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:08 amI’ve heard that imdw is a disingenuous little twit.
OK, I haven’t been following the threads, but imdw’s comment in this thread was perfectly innocuous.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:19 amIt won’t be a white male, that much you can be certain of. A radical black female would be the obvious choice.
Republicans wouldn’t need to vote to confirm a white male liberal and that means the “blue dogs” would damage themselves by voting for the nominee without cover. Perhaps they could get away with a Jewish male and compell some Republicans to vote for the nominee in fear of otherwise being labeled anti-semitic.
j curtis (baef6f) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:28 amOK, I haven’t been following the threads
Just as well – the one we’re referring to will make your head hurt…badly.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:46 amPatterico – Check his/her behavior in the Organizing for America thread.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:48 amMaybe an appropriate successor would be Stephen King?
Andrew (e17957) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:51 amThe real problem is that the Democrats are going to lose a bunch of Senates seats in 2010, so they’ll want to get Stevens replacement confirmed fast.
The Republicans need to prevent that, of course, and maybe make Obama’s left-wing court choices a campaign issue.
Which would mean that Obama won’t be able to appoint anyone truly off the left wall, or he hands the Republicans yet another issue in a Republican year.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/3/2009 @ 8:18 amIs Lynne Stewart out of jail?
If Obama appoints another Latino/a does that mean he can put immigration reform on the backburner for one more year?
JVW (d1215a) — 9/3/2009 @ 8:28 amI always considered Stevens to be the weak link in the Supreme Court chain. Whoever Obama appoints to replace him probably won’t be any worse.
tim maguire (4a98f0) — 9/3/2009 @ 8:53 amNOW can it finally be Caroline Kennedy’s turn? I’m sure she was so disappointed to be passed over for the NY Senate seat, doesn’t it only seem fair that the Kennedy’s should get something? Something?
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 9/3/2009 @ 8:58 amPatterico – I am not a nice person. I have failed, miserably, with the kindler gentler JD. I denounce myself.
JD (92fffb) — 9/3/2009 @ 9:03 amGesundheit, if I told you that you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose:
Caroline on the Supreme Court,
JVW (d1215a) — 9/3/2009 @ 9:17 amor
(pick one) Patrick, Ted Jr., or Robert F. Jr. in the Senate?
An unconstitutional constitution.
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/3/2009 @ 9:44 amTo be fair, the question was whether the procedure used to get the issue on the ballot complied with the constitution.
I think such challenges should be heard before the election, although I can understand the institutional reasons why they aren’t.
[For what it’s worth, I thought that the procedural argument was wrong, in part because it depended on the rules resetting after the decision in the marriage cases … and I thought that resetting the rules after the petitions had been filed would have constituted a deprivation of due process. But the argument had more merit than is implied by the portrayal of it as being about whether the constitution violated itself.]
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/3/2009 @ 11:54 am