David Souter retiring from Supreme Court

If you're a liberal on that court and you want to retire, why wait.

In the meantime, I hope in vain that Clarence Thomas will hate his job so much that he'll retire anyway.

It's going to be a woman or a minority. More than likely a woman. I haven't heard anything that'll be Rendell.

What a fuckin week.

And you know Obama will get another seat because Stevens will probably go by latest in 2011. He just wants to break some records.

I'd be shocked if Ginsberg stuck around. If anything, I expected her to be the first to leave, not Souter.

Ginsburg also.

According to one story I read Souter checked with Stevens and Ginsburg to see if they were leaving. He didn't want to leave when they did because it would open multiple vacancies. They said they weren't. So there ya go.

It's gonna be a helluva of a summer!

Souter had signaled he would retire if a Democrat was elected. It was all but written in stone the next President (09-13) would get at least two picks for the Supreme Court. Souter and Ginsberg both had been itching to retire. That's why I was initially leaning towards a liberal candidate this past election (before the primary ended).

No matter who Obama picks it should keep the balance of the court intact... and shouldn't have a problem passing Senate approval. I doubt it could be anywhere near as bad as the Harriet Miers debacle.

Well, it'll probably help if he doesn't appoint his own personal lawyer.

Only thing that I require of Obama for this pick is that the selection is younger than 61 year old Thomas.
The 3 youngest members of the court are Thomas, Alito at 59, and 54 year old Roberts.

The choice can't be older than 60. I would also pick a Latino or Asian.

Edward James Olmos.

Not a chance, considering how he let personal sentimental feelings affect him in the People vs Baltar case.

Yeah, forget about the Fourth of July, this is where the fireworks are gonna be!

Look at it this way. I highly doubt you'll see a white male for the next couple of appointments.

It'll probably be someone in their early to mid 50s.

Can the Republican's filibuster before the Al Franken decision?

I am predicting 1. Black Woman and 2. Asian or Latino male.

There's going to have some really ballsy shit to pull a filabuster on a Supreme Court nominee, especially because there hasn't even been someone nominated. But it's likely a name won't come up until after the June arguments on that case. As to whether or not Coleman wants to go Federal. We'll see.

I have a gut feeling when the next vacancy comes up. It'll go to Koh (Whose first name escapes me).

He got nailed for that drunk driving in New England. Never gonna happen. Now Glenn Close would rock but will William Fichtner join the team?

Despite her work in the Farmington District, Close's attempts to have Rose Byrne killed are going to wreck her confirmation prospects.

Koh is asian, right?

I would love Obama to pick a black person for the supreme court. He should say in his introduction of the nominee...

"For the first time since 91, African Americans will have some one to represent them on the supreme court!"

Koh is asian, yes. He was the dean of Yale Law School. Guy got himself confirmed to a position in the State Department.

Now the speculation also points out Granholm and Patrick.

Where is that from?

Howzabout he just picks the best person for the job, even if it is another white male, rather than trying to recreate a Benetton ad? This is a lifetime appointment, skin color and genitalia don't matter.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, if it's a tie, give it to the brother. Otherwise, just pick the best candidate.

Justice Thomas replaced the great Thurgood Marshall in 1991.

Many African Americans don't like Thomas because of his rulings against affirmative action. He has been accused of being an Uncle Tom many times.

I knew what it was referring to. I was asking who said the quote.

The video on Yahoo! right now of Obama announcing he spoke to Souter is great.

"Hey!"

Also, keep an ear out for the female voice that moans "Come back...!!" near the end.

Here's some opinions via I guy know who works in congress. It's pretty damn in depth:

http://trumantolong.blogspot.com/

Fox News really knows how to speak to its audience.

I had no knowledge of this Fox Nation site. It's now one of my instant favorites.

You forget that he's a diabetic. If he had enough alcohol to blow a .02 on the Breathalyzer, he'd be dead right now. They pulled him over because he looks like his name is Edward James Olmos, and he's coming to rob your house.

No white hoods with that picture? I'm surprised internet.

Yeah, um, I hate people who whine about "political correctness", but the weird obsession with Obama's supposed need to pick a gay black woman or whatever is kind of alarming. I'd really rather they pick a fine legal mind who can help advance the gay pot abortion terrorist agenda as best as possible.

Though I would support the appointment of a Sarlacc, provided it agrees to devour Scalia at the first opportunity.

I want to see a midget. Talk about a minority.

How about Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA)? He is a white guy, but he is only 35. He is a Iraq vet and he helped prosecute Chemical Ali when he was a JAG officer.

The guy can argue extremely well as in this clip about Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The thing is that, hypothetically at least, you're hiring someone for one of the most prestigious legal positions in the country; you have your pick of some of the best legal minds in the world.

When hiring someone on this level, every candidate should and probably will have a "fine legal mind." There should be no one "best candidate," but a collection of superb candidates with different perspectives. And since perspective and subjectivity are key on the court (after all, if Supreme Court decisions were somehow decided objectively, why would we be so concerned when a liberal judge retires during a conservative administration and vice versa), it makes sense to appoint in such a way that many perspectives are represented - quite possibly in a way that reflects the makeup of the nation, at least to some degree.

In other words, if women represent more than 50% of the population, it's fucked up that there's only one on the Supreme Court. The court doesn't need to be a perfect demographic representation of the country, but that shows a severly under-represented perspective. This is not to say that there's such a thing as a single, unified "women's perspective" or "black perspective," but there are absolutely perspectives unique to women and African-Americans (among others) that can't be fully understood by those in societally-privileged positions (white, male), no matter how educated, open-minded, or sympathetic they may be.

Well sure, and all else being equal, as Nekkerbee says, give it to the brother. Or sister. I just find it strange that this seems to be so many people's #1 criteria, not just here but throughout the interwebs.

It's not impossible that a minority may end up being more conservative than a white male, so there's that. The Supreme Court has a history of proving ideologically surprising once appointed.

I'm not arguing liberal vs. conservative. While those labels often match up directly with the way that individuals perceive issues of gender and race, they don't always. A conservative female judge will have perspectives unavailable to a conservative male judge. A liberal black judge will have perspectives unavailable to a liberal white judge.