Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

2009-04-30 20:14:57

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5887

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court's age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court's more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =103694193
Well Fox News has something to bitch about in a few months.

2009-04-30 20:17:28

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Homer: "Not Souter!"

Let's see who Obama picks and then be critical. You guys get too worked up before Obama even makes a bad decision, you all assume he's already going to make a bad one.

2009-04-30 20:23:49

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5887

AussieReaper wrote:
Homer: "Not Souter!"

Let's see who Obama picks and then be critical. You guys get too worked up before Obama even makes a bad decision, you all assume he's already going to make a bad one.

What do you mean you guys

2009-04-30 20:40:58

#4

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7069

Roe V Wade up for challenge with the new appointee?

2009-04-30 20:46:21

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Macbeth wrote:
What do you mean you guys

"Americans" in general. Nobody specific in this thread or forum.

You said so yourself: "Fox News has something to bitch about in a few months."

edit: lol, you know you can't make a joke in d&st without sarcasm tags!

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-04-30 20:50:53)

2009-04-30 20:52:07

#6

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5887

AussieReaper wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
What do you mean you guys
"Americans" in general. Nobody specific in this thread or forum.

You said so yourself: "Fox News has something to bitch about in a few months."

edit: lol, you know you can't make a joke in d&st without sarcasm tags!

DST is a joke. /sarcasm

2009-05-01 06:03:50

#7

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France

Souter's liberal. Will be replaced by a liberal. Little change there.

2009-05-01 06:31:21

#8

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6747|The Land of Scott Walker

Pug's right.

2009-05-01 07:15:39

#9

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6712|'Murka

Pug wrote:
Souter's liberal. Will be replaced by a liberal. Little change there.

This.

It's a non-issue.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-05-01 08:15:34

#10

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7069

FEOS wrote:
It's a non-issue.

It will be an issue for Lowing

2009-05-01 23:41:09

#11

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7016|US

I'm curious as to who will be nominated to replace him, and whether they will be a strong supporter of individual rights or not.

2009-05-01 23:47:28

#12

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5912|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

FEOS wrote:
Pug wrote:
Souter's liberal. Will be replaced by a liberal. Little change there.
This.

It's a non-issue.

Indeed, it really doesn't matter.

2009-05-02 00:31:35

#13

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6882|the dank(super) side of Oregon

whoever barry picks we gotta watch out for for that sharia. he is, after all, a forun-born secret mooslum.

2009-05-02 09:28:45

#14

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5898|Vacationland

nickb64 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Pug wrote:
Souter's liberal. Will be replaced by a liberal. Little change there.
This.

It's a non-issue.
Indeed, it really doesn't matter.

On the contrary the Republicans love judicial appointments where they can whine about someone being too liberal. Apparently it's okay for the republicans to appoint someone as Conservative as Roberts, but it's not okay for the Democrats to nominate someone liberal. Also now the republicans are threatening to filibuster if Obama appoints someone too liberal, when in 2005 they called filibustering a nominee unconstitutional when the Dems threatened to.

2009-05-02 09:43:32

#15

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6948

Narupug wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

This.

It's a non-issue.
Indeed, it really doesn't matter.
On the contrary the Republicans love judicial appointments where they can whine about someone being too liberal. Apparently it's okay for the republicans to appoint someone as Conservative as Roberts, but it's not okay for the Democrats to nominate someone liberal. Also now the republicans are threatening to filibuster if Obama appoints someone too liberal, when in 2005 they called filibustering a nominee unconstitutional when the Dems threatened to.

Souter was appointed by a moderate conservative you know.

2009-05-02 09:45:23

#16

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Souter was appointed by a moderate conservative you know.

Bush was a moderate? lol

2009-05-02 09:48:34

#17

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5898|Vacationland

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Narupug wrote:
nickb64 wrote:

Indeed, it really doesn't matter.
On the contrary the Republicans love judicial appointments where they can whine about someone being too liberal. Apparently it's okay for the republicans to appoint someone as Conservative as Roberts, but it's not okay for the Democrats to nominate someone liberal. Also now the republicans are threatening to filibuster if Obama appoints someone too liberal, when in 2005 they called filibustering a nominee unconstitutional when the Dems threatened to.
Souter was appointed by a moderate conservative you know.

Yeah he was appointed by papa bush, but today's republican party is much different and continuing to distance themselves.

2009-05-02 09:52:03

#18

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6948

AussieReaper wrote:
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Souter was appointed by a moderate conservative you know.
Bush was a moderate? lol

Senior was more moderate, yes. Look it up.

2009-05-02 10:26:08

#19

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6850|San Diego, CA, USA

Pug wrote:
Souter's liberal. Will be replaced by a liberal. Little change there.

/thread

With a super majority they will have shortly in the Senate the Democrats can pretty much put anyone they want into that position.

2009-05-02 20:26:18

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6712|'Murka

Narupug wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

This.

It's a non-issue.
Indeed, it really doesn't matter.
On the contrary the Republicans love judicial appointments where they can whine about someone being too liberal. Apparently it's okay for the republicans to appoint someone as Conservative as Roberts, but it's not okay for the Democrats to nominate someone liberal. Also now the republicans are threatening to filibuster if Obama appoints someone too liberal, when in 2005 they called filibustering a nominee unconstitutional when the Dems threatened to.

Yeah. Because Dems didn't squawk on any of the Republican Presidents' SCOTUS nominations, did they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bor … 22_as_verb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_T … nfirmation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H. … nomination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Ali … n_hearings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Ro … nfirmation

I guess blinders work on both sides of the ideological aisle, don't they?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-05-02 20:39:05

#21

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5898|Vacationland

FEOS wrote:
Narupug wrote:
nickb64 wrote:

Indeed, it really doesn't matter.
On the contrary the Republicans love judicial appointments where they can whine about someone being too liberal. Apparently it's okay for the republicans to appoint someone as Conservative as Roberts, but it's not okay for the Democrats to nominate someone liberal. Also now the republicans are threatening to filibuster if Obama appoints someone too liberal, when in 2005 they called filibustering a nominee unconstitutional when the Dems threatened to.
Yeah. Because Dems didn't squawk on any of the Republican Presidents' SCOTUS nominations, did they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bor … 22_as_verb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_T … nfirmation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H. … nomination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Ali … n_hearings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Ro … nfirmation

I guess blinders work on both sides of the ideological aisle, don't they?

Well both sides go back on their word when they are in/out of power. I just think that the Supreme Court has become more of a puppet branch of government and less of a court. I mean these days whichever part gets appoint the most justices get to have their agenda advanced. Bush v. Gore is a prime example. I confess if it comes down to it I would prefer a more liberal court tbh.

2009-05-03 04:03:10

#22

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6712|'Murka

I'd bet the SCOTUS would take exception to your puppet branch comment. Souter himself is one key example of how they are not.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-05-03 09:16:28

#23

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5898|Vacationland

FEOS wrote:
I'd bet the SCOTUS would take exception to your puppet branch comment. Souter himself is one key example of how they are not.

Do you acknowledge that it has become a political appointment?

2009-05-03 09:46:18

#24

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6296|Truthistan

Souter was more liberal than more recent Republican picks. That's probably because the religious right failed to fully realize the power SCOTUS holds. During Reagan and Bush 1 the religous right were strong on states rights and for a weak SCOTUS. Remember Larry Flynt and pornography and community standards issues. Then the northern states started to move in the opposite direction and so the religious right changed tactics and worked hard to get their people on SCOTUS.

Since Souter they have tried to get younger (50ish) hard right judges appointed in order to get the court locked into their way of thinking. In the near future that's going to pose some problems because the court is bound to be out of step with society as society is moving towards more individualism (which is what Scalia hates.)

I fully expect that national health care will be challenged in SCOTUS before we get to see one doctor. The head of that line will be the retards governors from S.Carolina and Texas along with the AMA and of course it will all be bought and paid for by all the health insurance companies.

Hey I just thought of something.... with a huge majority in the senate, the dems could impeach Scalia, now that would be cool.

2009-05-03 10:23:59

#25

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5898|Vacationland

Diesel_dyk wrote:
Souter was more liberal than more recent Republican picks. That's probably because the religious right failed to fully realize the power SCOTUS holds. During Reagan and Bush 1 the religous right were strong on states rights and for a weak SCOTUS. Remember Larry Flynt and pornography and community standards issues. Then the northern states started to move in the opposite direction and so the religious right changed tactics and worked hard to get their people on SCOTUS.

Since Souter they have tried to get younger (50ish) hard right judges appointed in order to get the court locked into their way of thinking. In the near future that's going to pose some problems because the court is bound to be out of step with society as society is moving towards more individualism (which is what Scalia hates.)

I fully expect that national health care will be challenged in SCOTUS before we get to see one doctor. The head of that line will be the retards governors from S.Carolina and Texas along with the AMA and of course it will all be bought and paid for by all the health insurance companies.

Hey I just thought of something.... with a huge majority in the senate, the dems could impeach Scalia, now that would be cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjwQjqmB6LY

Nice Explanation, yeah impeaching Scalia would be awesome to see. The only question is what has he done that is a "high crime," I wonder if he is linked to the whole waterboarding gitmo thing . Well if pressed I'm sure he's accepted bribes.

BF2S Forums Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Pug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pug wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pug wrote:

Narupug wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Pug wrote:

Narupug wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Narupug wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Board footer