Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

Announced his retirement within the last few minutes:

http://www.nytimes.com/

I'm not a huge fan of his opinions - they are just way too sloppy compared to someone like Scalia - but I'm surprised he didn't want to stay on long enough to break some records that were in reach. Amazing life, too, as documented in the recent New Yorker profile by Jeffrey Toobin. After more than three decades on the Court, certainly an American institution that deserves mention on here, even granting the inevitable padlock.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/76799/

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Stallball not seen since the Phil Ford days awaits

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Ha, was just going to post this and had the same question as you.

It's clearly news. Hopefully we can keep it simple.

It will be interesting. I wonder when we'll have a nominee and how soon hearings will start.

I don't believe a judge should face a filibuster. Elections matter and short of a someone who is unethical or just unqualified for the job (Harriet ?), the President should get his pick.

But you've got to figure that the Senate Dems who are facing tough reelection campaigns will not want Obama to pick someone controversial.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Tribe is nearly 70.

That's way too old. A President is always under pressure to pick someone young so they can serve for a long period of time.

Unfortunately, that tends to rule out some of the most qualified people who could cap a long, prestigious law career with a tenure on the highest court.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

As someone mentioned, judges shouldn't face filibusters but the Dems established different ground rules on this years ago. I would expect the GOP will play by those rules and the Dems to piss and moan about GOP doing exactly what they did to Bush's nominees.

That said, replacing a liberal judge with another liberal judge doesn't change much. This stuff is fun to watch though.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

Well, there are some pretty liberal judges that will be under consideration. Usually, Republicans have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Supreme Court nominees. Look at the numbers Ginsburg received.

But if the Republicans don't give a liberal nominee much -- or any support -- some of the Dems in tough fights might be apprehensive to support the nominee. Though, even though they have votes to spare, I can't imagine a Dem voting against an Obama nominee.

What will be more interesting is if he decide to nominate someone who is not a current Federal Judge. There's been a lot of speculation that he might. He's said as much.

Anyone with a political background would face a much tougher fight.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

He's just tired of enduring the reactionary kneejerking of Fat Tony and his
pair of slavering dittoheads (Alito and Thomas).

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I don't want to be a dick, but those kind of posts are the ones that send these threads of the rails.

Someone will feel it necessary to defend the parties mentioned and will likely call you a name in the process.

It would be nice if we could talk about the process, strategy, etc. without it becoming a Steelers or small market/big market pissing match.

I'm one of the biggest conservatives on here, but I'm more than happy to have a conversation about the process with the most liberal members of this board.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

If only Scalia weren't so ethically sloppy in comparison to Stevens.

Of Stevens, Republican Fmr. President Ford said in 2005: "He is serving his nation well, with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns."

Meanwhile, Scalia took a series of Louisiana hunting trips with Dick Cheney in 2004, then felt it was a-ok to rule on a case involving the former VP.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/

-----------

I think one thing you'll see in the Stevens coverage is praise over how buttoned up he was ethically.

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

One possible replacement, Diane Wood, of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) would be an excellent choice, however, some of her political stances (especially rulings that are pro-abortion) will could lead to a filibuster.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/diane_pamela_wood/index.html?inline=nyt-per

 

Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

I think it's easier to write quote-unquote "clean" legal opinions when there aren't many shades of gray for you.

But I will give you that Scalia is seen as one of the best legal minds on the court... at least that's what my "legal-type friends" say. According to them, in the legal community, Thomas is roundly seen as the worst.