Justice Stevens to Retire

[SmootSmack]

Not too surprising really

High court: Justice Stevens to retire - CNN.com

[Monkeydad]

Bad timing, that's all I'll say about that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Buster

Bad timing, that's all I'll say about that.

How so? I mean clearly he wants his successor to be nominated by L.O. and if he does it after next election cycles the Republicans likely would have more influence. This allows L.O. to go with a strict liberal and push it through before the new Senate would be seated.

[tryfuhl]

I don't think that people should be serving when that old anyways, best wishes in his retirement though. With any luck we can get another Sotomayor....

[12thMan]

I agree with Buster, I don't like the timing of this at all.

[12thMan]

I think you're wrong on both counts. Whether the GOP win more seats or not, they'll confirm Obama's nominee in the end. They'll kick up a lot of dust, but he/she will get confirmed.

In terms of a "stict liberal", whatever that is, I think Obama will pick another middle of the road nominee that is probably just left of center. The acid test of how liberal the nominee is or isn't is how the far left reacts, not Sean Hannity. Truth is, whomever he chooses the GOP will portray them as a radical liberal no matter what.

My issue with the timing, which may differ from Buster's, is that the dust has barely settled on healthcare, so there's still some raw feelings on both sides of the aisle leftover from the debate. Secondly, with the mid-terms approaching this will be over politicized and over covered by the media and further gridlock Washington.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you're wrong on both counts. Whether the GOP win more seats or not, they'll confirm Obama's nominee in the end. They'll kick up a lot of dust, but he/she will get confirmed.

In terms of a "stict liberal", whatever that is, I think Obama will pick another middle of the road nominee that is probably just left of center. The acid test of how liberal the nominee is or isn't is how the far left reacts, not Sean Hannity. Truth is, whomever he chooses the GOP will portray them as a radical liberal no matter what.

My issue with the timing, which may differ from Buster's, is that the dust has barely settled on healthcare, so there's still some raw feelings on both sides of the aisle leftover from the debate. Secondly, with the mid-terms approaching this will be over politicized and over covered by the media and further gridlock Washington.

it just keeps getting worse and worse

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you're wrong on both counts. Whether the GOP win more seats or not, they'll confirm Obama's nominee in the end. They'll kick up a lot of dust, but he/she will get confirmed.

In terms of a "stict liberal", whatever that is, I think Obama will pick another middle of the road nominee that is probably just left of center. The acid test of how liberal the nominee is or isn't is how the far left reacts, not Sean Hannity. Truth is, whomever he chooses the GOP will portray them as a radical liberal no matter what.

My issue with the timing, which may differ from Buster's, is that the dust has barely settled on healthcare, so there's still some raw feelings on both sides of the aisle leftover from the debate. Secondly, with the mid-terms approaching this will be over politicized and over covered by the media and further gridlock Washington.

What debate?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you're wrong on both counts. Whether the GOP win more seats or not, they'll confirm Obama's nominee in the end. They'll kick up a lot of dust, but he/she will get confirmed.

In terms of a "stict liberal", whatever that is, I think Obama will pick another middle of the road nominee that is probably just left of center. The acid test of how liberal the nominee is or isn't is how the far left reacts, not Sean Hannity. Truth is, whomever he chooses the GOP will portray them as a radical liberal no matter what.

My issue with the timing, which may differ from Buster's, is that the dust has barely settled on healthcare, so there's still some raw feelings on both sides of the aisle leftover from the debate. Secondly, with the mid-terms approaching this will be over politicized and over covered by the media and further gridlock Washington.

How sweet of you to think about me when I'm not here.


This woman sounds like a reasonable selection from President Obama.

A President with no prior executive experience selecting a Justice with no prior judicial experience.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Buster

How sweet of you to think about me when I'm not here.


This woman sounds like a reasonable selection from President Obama.

A President with no prior executive experience selecting a Justice with no prior judicial experience.

Just like William Rehnquist.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Buster

How sweet of you to think about me when I'm not here.


This woman sounds like a reasonable selection from President Obama.

A President with no prior executive experience selecting a Justice with no prior judicial experience.

I believe there's been something like 40 SCOTUS picks without prior judicial experience.

The second argument is as old as John McCain

[saden1]

Nothing wrong with the timing at all. If the Republicans want to filibuster nominees they can solidify their Party of No/Obstructionists label. 41 Senators will be required to stop a nominee and I doubt Lord Obama will nominate another Harriet Miers or some other unqualified individuals. I hope he nominates someone young and liberal.

Let the games begin.

[12thMan]

Haha...Lord Obama. I keep hearing Elana Kagan as the front runner. Would be nice if he picked a more liberal nominee, but I doubt he will.

[Beemnseven]

If you're a Republican, this is just another friendly reminder of how bad your guys are at picking Supreme Court nominees. Before David Souter retired, 7 of the 9 justices were picked by Republican presidents, yet just about every important decision that came down hung in the balance on a 5-4 vote that could always go either way.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

If you're a Republican, this is just another friendly reminder of how bad your guys are at picking Supreme Court nominees. Before David Souter retired, 7 of the 9 justices were picked by Republican presidents, yet just about every important decision that came down hung in the balance on a 5-4 vote that could always go either way.

Or maybe republican presidents of the old day had a democratic congress which kept either side from being to politically charged. Or maybe republican presidents looked at candidates based on constitutional constructs and not as much on political leanings. Or maybe republican presidents just didn't have a clue.

I vote for all of the above.