Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Likely to Pick Woman to Replace Souter
Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has reportedly informed the White House that he plans to retire, is a relative youngster in high court terms.
Five of the current justices are older than the appointee of former President George Bush who turned out to be more liberal on a number of issues than the appointees of former President Bill Clinton. So, at 69, Souter could easily be looking forward to another two decades on the bench. (After all, Justice John Paul Stevens, another Republican appointee gone liberal, is 89 and going strong; most court watchers think Stevens is aiming to surpass the record of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who retired -- just shy of age 91 -- as the oldest justice in the high court's history.)
But Souter has been quietly telling his circle of friends and legal compatriots - the former attorneys general who he got to know when he served as New Hampshire's chief law enforcement officer - that he wants to retire. Though fit and energetic, Souter has never made any secret of his distaste for Washington and his long-term desire to return to his native New England.
Now, Souter appears to have formalized an exit strategy, as reports circulate that he has informed the White House of his intention to retire at the end of the court's current term.
If Souter follows through on the plan, President Obama will be making a court appointment that, while it is unlikely to alter the court's ideological balance, could bring needed diversity to the bench.
The early line holds that Obama will pick a woman to sit with the court's lone female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ailing member of the court's more liberal wing.
Prospects?
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has already been appointed to a top position by Obama. She was Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009 by a vote of 61 to 31, after conservatives objected to the former Harvard Law School dean's positions on a number of issues.
2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia_Sotomayor, whose Hispanic background could make her a politically-attractive nominee. A centrist who was first nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush and then nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton, she was criticized by some conservatives as a "judicial activist." But the 1998 approval of her appeals court appointment came on a 68-28 vote, with broad Republican support.
Federal Judge Diane Wood, who once taught at the University of Chicago with a young constitutional law professor named Barack Obama. His 1995 appointment by Clinton won unanimous approval from the Senate, even though the former clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun has taken hits from social conservative groups for her "strongly pro-abortion" views.
There are, of course, more prospective candidates, including state Supreme Court justices such as Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, North Carolina Associate Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Wisconsin Associate Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
No matter who Obama picks, the chances that his nominee will be confirmed with relative ease have risen significantly in recent days. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's switch from the Republican caucus to the Democratic caucus moves a key member of the Judiciary Committee into the majority-party camp. If and when Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party candidate Al Franken is finally seated, Democrats will have the 60 votes they need to advance a nomination without having to contend with a Republican filibuster.
The one complexity that conservatives have highlighted involves the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee operates under an arcane set of internal rules, including one that usually requires the consent of a minority party member to advance a controversial nomination. Specter was the Republican most likely to assist the Democrats in such a circumstance.
But it is worth noting that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the committee, oversaw the confirmations of both Sotomayor and Wood when he served in the 1990s as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the case of Sotomayor, Hatch broke with more conservative Republicans to back her nomination to the appeals court.
- Posted in


28 Comments so far
Show AllObama Likely to Pick Woman to Replace Souter
_____________________________________
That ought to be interesting; I've never seen Robert Bork in drag before!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Bring America Back !!!!.........Well, male or female, our Forefathers just never
envisioned that only one political party could or would control the entire
panel membership of the High Court !! Otherwise, the Presidential appointment
concept was and is never a good idea !!
*They did not know becoming a Justice would mean a lifetime appointment
to support your King, instead of the Law of the Land!
....The Founding Fathers neither comprehended that one party would control
all three branches of the Government they were constructing, otherwise they
would've installed a whole different system of checks and balances.
....Since Oprah Winfrey is not an Attorney I refuse to speculate, or waste
further precious time on guessing games and who will be Next blessed !!!
*********I do, however, have the Solution to the problem. Change !!
Nominees for Supreme Court Justice openings shall come from all Three Branches
of Government--not just from Presidents. Each Branch shall nominate 2 Two
candidates--making six nominations for the job.
**Then the Governors of the 50 States shall meet--very similarly to the College of Cardinals meeting to elect a New Pope. Each Governor shall cast a secret ballot for only one Nominee until a 2/3 majority vote is won by a single candidate.
**If, after 5 secret ballots of the Governors, a 2/3 majority candidate is not
reached===the three branches of Govt must submit six more different nominees.
***Rest assured, when a Supreme Court Justice is declared under this procedure.
politics shall have played a minimal--NOT a perjurative part in his or her
selection to this lifetime responsibility. Whig, Tory, Yankee, Confederate,???
*******I hate to offer correction to the Forefathers, but at this point in
our Nation's life, we need it badly !!
yeah, exactly. as long as (s)he pays lip service to holding the status quo on abortion rights, whatever else (s)he does, john nichols will be thrilled, b/c a democrat got to put somebody on the bench.
Of course, it has to be a "centrist," which a few years ago would have been called a right-winger. Can't go too far out, you know.
Don't Americans find it a bit odd that there is only one woman on their supreme court?
Re jlocke123 May 1st, 2009 11:51 am, who asks,
"Don't Americans find it a bit odd that there is only one woman on their supreme court?"
Why odd? Black men won the franchise before white women...
What are you waiting for? Shouldn't the court reflect the composition of society?
jlocke123 sez: "Don't Americans find it a bit odd that there is only one woman on their supreme court?"
***
Most Americans would find it odd to learn they HAVE a supreme court.
Actually, I was listening to the US official channel, I forget what it is called, but anyway, It was a phone in show on torture.
Half of the callers let on, supported forgiveness for Bush, he "kept them safe" and, what I found telling was that half of these, could barely form a coherent sentence.
Now I'm not saying that there are not illiterate and underschooled people everywhere, it is just that it is scary that such people, who can barely speak coherently, have the resposability to choose the leadership of such an important country that is striking out all over the world.
Re jlocke123 May 1st, 2009 1:20 pm
I recall (just barely) being in a bar in Give, Denmark after a gig in the spring of 2004; we got on the subject of US politics in general and foreign policy in particular, and I declared that everybody in the world should be allowed to vote in US elections, because what happens here affects people everywhere. I wasn't allowed to pay for another pint.
What impressed me most was how much better-informed Europeans are about, well, everything, than the average US citizen. I attribute this to their relative freedom from political and media monoculture.
At my jobs, co-workers from other countries in every continent were far more informed about world affairs than those born and raised here in the US.
Joe
It's cool: we'll have 3 in about 7 years.
We are used to seeing an array of white men striding down the hall in suits when it comes to any position requiring deep thinking or math. Preferably they have had the annealing experience of going through Skull and Bones or an Ivy League education. It is still the default. It is still not noticable or worthy of comment. Watch who goes to international fora. Men dominate everywhere, but some countries do a lot better than the US.
And it should be - the magical Summers and Geithner are so much more qualified to run the economy than any woman, any black woman who raises a family and sends them all to college while working two jobs at minimum wage. Then you might get a Lani Guinier, obviously unqualified since she mentioned proportional representation. Or Joyce Elders, who made some truthful and life saving suggestions on teen sexuality. Or Iris Mack, who hinted that Summers investment strategy at Harvard was flawed and was promptly fired.
That being said, I would rather have a thoughtful, empathic and courageous white man than say Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas or Nancy Pelosi.
Joe
Sioux Rose
JCLIENTELE: Good post.
smipypr
Americans might also be stunned to discover there is no Constitutional limit to the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be a gas if there were two or three nominees? CitiGroup could bid for the naming rights on the Supreme Court building upgrade/enlargement. But seriously, folks... Putting up several nominees would help end the hand-wringing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth by making an effort to balance, rather than pack, the Court. Nine out fifteen Justices agree - civil rights should be restored. I can almost hear it now.
that really didn't work out for FDR... I don't think Obama will forge ahead where FDR failed...
But if you pick a woman, woul;dn't Hispanics be upset? Blacks? Asians? Thats my crude way of saying I'm sick of these racist and gender games.. I'd be happy if he picked the right person myself.
Its about time we grew up.
THANK YOU Thomas ! I read this article earlier but I felt so angry to the core about the author discussing women-only judges that I didn't even feel like venting my anger at this point. Just looking at all the justices we now have, when it comes to economic justice, it does not matter if the justice is "liberal" or "conservative". They always side with the corporate weasels against the little guys. Even on social issues, it's a mixed bag although I've given up worrying about overturning Roe v Wade or even affirmative action since the economy is getting worse overall. Besides, affirmative action did nothing to help an Afghan American candidate for employment make it. I and my team had to fight management to get her employed. As for abortion, the Rethugs would never want to see it overturned as they always wanted a social issue to stir up their fake social base. And by now, Roe v Wade has been rendered irrelevant. Since 1992, Casey vs Planned Parenthood has replaced it. Ok, sorry to digress.
P.S.: I'll probably get called a racist for saying this but affirmative action is outdated. I don't support racism and I don't support giving higher preference to any one particular race, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc ... People should be judged on their actual performance plain and simple. Besides, Obama made it to the highest office and he didn't need affirmative action to get him to where he's at. He's one hell of a smart weasel even if he drives me nuts moving to the right on this or that.
"As for abortion, the Rethugs would never want to see it overturned as they always wanted a social issue to stir up their fake social base. And by now, Roe v Wade has been rendered irrelevant. "
It is sad that a young woman such as yourself could be so complacent, and take for granted your rights and freedoms.
If you think that the right would never want to see Roe v Wade overturned, just because they want a social issue, that is a remarkably naive view. They can always find other "social" issues, such as gay marriage.
"Besides, affirmative action did nothing to help an Afghan American candidate for employment make it. I and my team had to fight management to get her employed."
So, because something isn't perfect in your opinion, because something doesn't work in one specific instance, it has no value? Should be discarded?
"Besides, Obama made it to the highest office and he didn't need affirmative action to get him to where he's at. He's one hell of a smart weasel even if he drives me nuts moving to the right on this or that."
Again, just because there is one exception, nothing else is relevant? One particular smart person succeeded without needing help, so no one else needs help?
Do you see that you are using the same arguments that the right uses to justify their economic / health policies: bring up one example of someone from a poor background who succeeded and is now affluent, thus, all poor people can also do that, if only they tried.
"I'll probably get called a racist for saying this but affirmative action is outdated. I don't support racism and I don't support giving higher preference to any one particular race, gender, religion, political affiliation, etc ... People should be judged on their actual performance plain and simple."
Wait, what about your Afghan American. Why did you and your team fight to get her employed? Judge her on her actual performance. Since she could not get hired without help, it is clear that she did not deserve the job. She needs to work harder.
I take it then that you also don't have a problem with say, a flat tax rate for everyone? Private schools, private education, private health for all? No one should be given a higher preference. Free market uber alles. People should be judged on their actual performance plain and simple.
"Just looking at all the justices we now have, when it comes to economic justice, it does not matter if the justice is "liberal" or "conservative". They always side with the corporate weasels against the little guys"
And what about when it comes to other issues?
I didn't say that I oppose abortion rights. What I said was that right now, Roe v Wade is for the most part irrelevant and since Casey v Planned Parenthood, the chipping away of its relevance has grown. Of course, the Right uses plenty of social issues but it's called "insurance". What the Democrats aren't doing which they're supposed to be doing is focusing on what really matters.
"Wait, what about your Afghan American. Why did you and your team fight to get her employed? Judge her on her actual performance. Since she could not get hired without help, it is clear that she did not deserve the job. She needs to work harder."
You know nothing about her qualifications so put a sock in it ! She proved herself well qualified but top management was busted for his hatred of Muslims and had to resign and I'm proud to have teamed up and busted that racist !
Would Hispanics be upset if Obama picked a woman? Blacks? Asians?
NO.
The people who would be upset are certain white males such as Thomas More.
That is disgusting ! You know nothing about qualifications from what I'm reading so far on your replies. You're supposed to judge people by what they do, not by race, gender, religion, etc ... ! No wonder the liberals and progressives are soaking in the losers' column !!
Sadly, Obama's appointments to date give little reason for optimism.
I hope he won't pick any woman with a hyphenated last name.
I nominate Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, age 77-- the judge who declared Bush's wiretapping program unconstitutional.
(It didn't do a damn bit of good, but that isn't HER fault.)
But of course Obama won't go NEAR anyone frowned upon by his pet constituency, the wingnuts.
He might even nominate Alberto Gonzales in another gesture of "reaching out"-- kicking the "no hard feelings" approach up a notch.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Too old.
Bring America Back !!!!......Who really cares ???
****Obama's Dept of Justice just dropped it's case against two indicted
right wing radical Neocon Spys of AIPAC, so that case will not even get
to Trial.
**Obamas DOJ has been obstructing any and all investigation into the
Bush cabal war crimes, with the frail cry of 'look forward, not backward' !
**So whether it is a female or male new member of the Supreme Court, if
Team Obama refuses to allow prosecutions of the varied crimes of the last
eight years==it may as well be a bunch of monkeys proclaiming the Law
of the Land !! Because it already is.....!
**So, this is all the time I want to devote to idle speculation on who
the Saviour's pick will be for High Court Duty !
ALSO, I have it on Insider Information that already decided for Souder's
replacement is a very competent grad of Harvard Law, extremely popular and very fashionable, with a winning personality--her name being Michelle Obama !!
Who knew ??????
I would like to see change I can believe in.
My dream is that this Supreme Court members all resign, stating: "Every new president should have his own appointees, just like his cabinet."
Well, I dream of world peace, too.