In the President's selection of a new Justice, Republican opinion is irrelevant.

[Tricky]

This presumes the nominee choice will actually be evaluated on her/his merits. I suggest no matter who is nominated and no matter how liberal or centrist the nominee is, the Republics will put on a massive campaign to paint the appointee as a radical racist socialist activist judge.

They probably will, but it will be much more easy to do it the judge actually is a liberal. Sotomayor was pretty much solidly in the middle and about the only thing they could ding her on were some not-while-judging comments she made to a Hispanic group. And it never came close to working.

Does Obama have another candidate like that up his sleeve? After all, he is replacing the Justice who is arguably the most liberal one there. And most likely, whoever he nominates will be confirmed, since the Dems still have the votes. But it will be costly, if the nominee is too far to the left. It could cost some Democrat seats.

Nevertheless, I think Obama should go ahead and replace Stevens with a like-minded juror, however costly it is in the short-term. Representatives serve two years. Senators six. Judges are there for a lifetime. If he really wants to make a difference in the US, he'll go for the long-term gain and hope the short-term cost is not too much.

Want to take me up on a wager?

All we need are some objective measures of what constitutes such a smear campaign, and what we want to bet.

No, I'm not betting. I fully realize that the GOP and the Tea Party, in the mood they're in, would attack and smear the nominee if it were Benjamin Frikken Franklin.

 

[Beerina]

It has also been said that Obama will not likely ever again have such a strong majority in Congress and should therefore not squander the opportunity to definitely keep the court in balance.

Well, I do believe that is the point of him retiring now rather than in 2 years.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I fully realize that the GOP and the Tea Party, in the mood they're in, would attack and smear the nominee if it were Benjamin Frikken Franklin.

The nomination could go to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans would lambast Obama's attempts to placate the American People instead of standing for what he believes...yadda yadda yadda...drugs...sensationalism...yadda yadda...

 

[NoScotsman]

It's sad to hear John Paul Stevens is just now retiring, particularly when his brain retired 10 years ago. Personally, I'd like to see some limits on how long Justices are allowed to serve. I don't think we need to see another Supreme Court Justice standing on stage whilst peeing down his leg.

IMO as a legal scholar, some of JPS' recent rulings have been curious, to say the least.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I'm a libertarian. I think all the Dem and GOP sparring is incredibling entertaining.

Where is Shanek, anyway?

Not as entertaining as the libertarian Holier-Than-Thou Two-Step. Have you driven on a paved road lately, Mr. Taxes Are Wrong?

 

[Beerina]

The nomination could go to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans would lambast Obama's attempts to placate the American People instead of standing for what he believes...yadda yadda yadda...drugs...sensationalism...yadda yadda...

They're...different things?

 

[Beerina]

Stevens is the last of the old guard, the 9 who were on the court when I was forced to memorize them in school.


Lemme see if I can do this:

Alex, who are:
Stevens
Sotomeyer
Kennedy
Alito
Souter
Thomas
(several minute pause, wait, didn't Souter retire?)
Scalia
Ginsberg
(several more minutes, who's the damned 5th conservative?)
Gabe Kaplan
?

 

[Ausmerican]

Stevens is the last of the old guard, the 9 who were on the court when I was forced to memorize them in school.


Lemme see if I can do this:

Alex, who are:
Stevens
Sotomeyer
Kennedy
Alito
Souter
Thomas
(several minute pause, wait, didn't Souter retire?)
Scalia
Ginsberg
(several more minutes, who's the damned 5th conservative?)
Gabe Kaplan
?

Chief Justice Roberts

 

[thaiboxerken]

Eh. Call me naive, but in my opinion the nominee's professional authority, skill and experience and his opinions and views on law is a great deal more important than whatever political opinions he or she might have.

For all the talk about "activist judges" in political discussions, based on what little I know about and have seen of the US Supreme Court it seems to be a very capable and professional court that sticks to its job of interpreting law and does not meddle unnecessarily in politics.

You are naive. There will always be political leanings influencing the decisions of any judge. Particularly with the Supreme Court, where many cases are political in nature, this is especially true. The idea that there could be non-biased, robotic law interpreters in the Supreme Court is ridiculous.
Have you been paying attention to Supreme Court decisions?! You don't think the declaration that Corporations are people isn't political?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They're...different things?

I'm with ya. Just pointing out what the naysayers will try to use as an argument against Obama's choice.

 

[Leif Roar]

You are naive. There will always be political leanings influencing the decisions of any judge.

Of course there will be, and of course a judge's political views and values will reflect in his judgments and interpretations and I'm not saying that one shouldn't consider their political leanings when considering them for the supreme court. I'm just saying that I think the importance placed on the supreme court judges' political leanings whenever the topic comes up is overstated, not that it doesn't exist or that it never affects their judgments.

I'd just rather see a damned good judge who disagrees with me politically on that court than one who agrees with me politically but who's merely a good judge.

 

[Brown]

For all the talk about "activist judges" in political discussions, based on what little I know about and have seen of the US Supreme Court it seems to be a very capable and professional court that sticks to its job of interpreting law and does not meddle unnecessarily in politics.

Brown, do you want to take this one?

I don't have too much to say beyond what I have said in other threads. In my view, use of terms like "activist" (and "liberal" and "conservative") typically does not add much to the discussion. Too often, people prefer to label something, then decide that they like or don't don't like it, because of the label they have (or someone else has) applied to it. Labelling (which is frightfully easy) is--for many people--a substitute for articulated thinking (which requires time and effort).

So let's leave the "activist" label aside, as Leif Roar may be suggesting.

I would generally concur with Leif Roar that most of the time the Court sticks to its job and does not meddle in political questions (a term that itself has many meanings). Many of the issues that come before the Supreme Court are mundane:

But most of the Supreme Court's cases aren't really all that high-profile (as Sarah Palin could attest, as she couldn't name a single case apart from Roe v. Wade). Lots of the cases deal with civil procedure or criminal procedure or taxes or bankruptcy or administrative law or admiralty or union law or treaties or federal benefits or commerce or federal circuit court squabbles.... The civil rights and First Amendment cases usually get the most attention, but there aren't that many of them.

It is the cases involving the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment that seem to draw the most attention, that seem to be perceived as being the most "political." There are some cases that involve such issues in every term, but most of the cases draw little but a disinterested "Meh" from the public, and it is rare to find any intelligent discussion of them in the media.

 

[Kodiak]

Not as entertaining as the libertarian Holier-Than-Thou Two-Step. Have you driven on a paved road lately, Mr. Taxes Are Wrong?

No. As you say, I Two-Step...

tipitty-tipitty-tipitty-tap...tapitty-tap-tipitty-tap-tapitty-tap-tipitty...tipitty-tipitty-tipitty-tap...

 

[Darth Rotor]

I echo the good Doctor. Incredibly, certain party "leaders" have already said they would oppose the nominee, whoever it is.

Sounds familiar ... care to go back to Roberts' nomination?

But I agree that it's a matter of making noise, since the votes necessary to approve are there.

DR

 

[Dorian Gray]

Consider this: Stevens is the only Protestant on the bench. Of the others, 6 are Catholic and 2 are Jewish. 6 are men, and 2 are women. 8 are not attractive. 8 are heterosexual. So we need someone who is a hot black lesbian atheist to balance out the court.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cool lets base it on American standards then.

But should we base them on a person?

We should base it on the electorate as a whole, obviously. Which is essentially the same electorate which elected both Bush and Obama. There's no point in trying to argue that either president embodies centrism relative to this electorate.

 

[Towlie]

So we need someone who is a hot black lesbian atheist to balance out the court.

I wonder if there's even one woman written up on Wikipedia who fits that description. Even Rachel Maddow only rates 2.5 out of a possible 4. (The .5 is because nobody knows anything about her religious beliefs.)

 

[gnome]

Consider this: Stevens is the only Protestant on the bench. Of the others, 6 are Catholic and 2 are Jewish. 6 are men, and 2 are women. 8 are not attractive. 8 are heterosexual. So we need someone who is a hot black lesbian atheist to balance out the court.

Wanda Sykes?
For certain definitions of "hot"... and I don't honestly know if she's an atheist, but she's far from fundamentalist.

 

[Towlie]

In my opening post, I wrote this:

Let's all hope that by now, (Obama has) finally learned to stop trying to pet the snake.

Well, it looks like he has done exactly that!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...rt-choice-without-bending-to-repu.php?ref=fpa

White House: Obama Won't Make Cautious Court Pick Because GOP Will Oppose Whoever He Nominates

Christina Bellantoni | April 20, 2010, 11:14AM

President Obama thinks Republicans will engage in a full battle over his Supreme Court nominee regardless of the person's ideological leanings, and in some ways "that realization is liberating for the president" to choose whomever he pleases, an administration official told TPMDC.

In comments that are at odds with the conventional wisdom about what Obama needs to do to make sure the Senate confirms his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens, a White House official involved in the confirmation process tells TPMDC that the President isn't taking a cautious approach to selecting a nominee. Despite having one less Democrat in the Senate than when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed last year, the administration isn't limiting itself to reviewing only centrist candidates for the court vacancy, the official said.

"It doesn't matter who he chooses, there is going to be a big 'ol fight over it. So he doesn't have to get sidetracked by those sorts of concerns," the official told me. The GOP has attempted to obstruct "anything of consequence" put forth by the Obama administration since he took office, the official said. "The president is making this decision with a pretty clear view that whoever he chooses is going to provoke a strong reaction on the right," the official added.

more

 

[thaiboxerken]

I hope he picks someone that can balance out the neocon views of Roberts and Alito for the next 25 years