SOUTER: EXIT STAGE LEFT

BOMBSHELL OUT OF THE BLUE

U.S. Justice Souter resigns

Preserved from Yahoo! News
Reuters
electronic scrapbook entry for Fri May 1 2009, 5:26 pm ET
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced on Friday he will resign, and President Barack Obama said he wanted someone with a sharp, independent mind for his first appointment to the nation's highest court.

Souter, 69, who has been on the court since 1990, said in a brief letter to the White House that he intended to retire when the justices go on their summer recess at the end of next month.


COMMENTARY

Souter leads by example. He has served less than twenty years. He has not yet turned 70 years of age. In a bad political era when Supreme Court Justices hold onto their power like grim death until the bitter end, he provides a refreshing example of come to Washington, serve in Washington, leave Washington.

Souter stands as the classic example of the 1990s of a president (in this case Bush the First) who decided on a supreme court justice nominee without studying him carefully. If Bush thought Souter would be a conservative, he was in the wrong opera.

Nowadays, court “history experts” like to say that Souter was a conservative who defected to liberalism. Nothing could be further from the true. Even in 1990, commentators in the know – and that does not include President Bush the First – knew that Souter was a classic New Hampshire libertarian. "Liberatarian" sums up the essence of Souter's career on the court.


ARTICLE Minutes later, Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room after speaking to Souter and said: "I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke."

Souter's retirement plans, which leaked out late on Thursday, sparked a frenzy of speculation about Obama's search for a replacement, although the transition is unlikely to change the nine-member court's ideological balance. Souter usually sides with the court's three other liberal justices.

"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't just about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook," Obama said.


COMMENTARY

Does Obama want a justice who believes in the Constitution? Or a justice who at least knows the details of the Constitution? Obama didn’t mention the Constitution, so he makes me nervous.


Article: With a rare vacancy on the court looming, advocacy groups were already positioning for a possible confirmation battle before the U.S. Senate, which has to give its approval to Obama's nominee.

"As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope we can swear in our new Supreme Court justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the court's new term begins," Obama said.


COMMENTARY

If we had shown some political courage and amended the Constitution to either ban or legalize abortion instead of relying on the spurious logic of Roe V Wade, then we would not obsess with every nomination and confirmation over the nominees and what they believe when it comes to so-called The Right to Choose unquote.


HARD QUESTIONS NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER FOR THE RECORD

Why is the Right to Choose paramount in abortion rights but not in marriage rights?

Why is the Right to Privacy paramount in abortion rights but not in private lives? Why does the Right to Privacy not prevent the federal government from spy on its citizens electronically as a part of the illusion of homeland security?

How did abortion on demand as birth control, a euphemistic way of saying legalizing destroying of human life for the personal convenience of the parents who do not want to be parents, become a moderate political position?


ARTICLE : STRONG PRESSURE TO NAME A WOMAN

Obama will likely face heavy pressure to name another woman or the first Hispanic. Possible candidates include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and appeals court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood.


COMMENTARY

We need a Constitutional Amendment to require each state to provide one male senator and one female senator.

We need a Constitutional Amendment to require that four of the Supreme Court Associate Justices be of the female gland and four of the Supreme Court Associate Justices to be of the male persuasion. The Chief Justices should alternate between the genders. Chief Justice Roberts is a man, they tell us, so the next Chief Justice should be female, and the Chief Justice after her should be a male and so on.


SPEAKING OF OUR ONLY FEMALE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

If Justice Bader Ginsberg has any sense at all, she should retire now so that a real liberal president will replace her on the court, and so he can decline and die of cancer in peace, quiet, and dignity. She should avoid the horror and indignity that befell Chief Justice Rehnquist who refused to let go of his power, even as he lay dying of a rare and painful form of cancer.


WE SHOULD SPEAK ABOUT STEVENS

Let us also gossip about Justice John Paul Stevens. President Ford nominated Stevens back in 1975, before Orrin Hatch ran for the senate. He comes from the Ford Administration which occurred in the middle of the 1970s. This was before the Carter administration, which did not even get to nominate anyone to the Court! Stevens will turn 90 years of age next year. Does the man want to hold on to his power until he turns 90? Oliver Wendall Holmes lived to 90 years. Or longer? Does he want to serve longer than the record nearly 37 years of Justice William O Douglas? Currently he is close to 34 years. Frankly he should retire quickly so that a real liberal will replace him.

RIGHT ASCENSION URGES

that Justices Stevens and Ginsberg should join Souter in retiring this spring.