Quote of the Day: On David Souter’s Resignation From The Supreme Court
Now that various reports have confirmed that Justice David Souter plans to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of this term, the question becomes not just who does President Barack Obama pick but how is that likely to go?
Our political Quote of the Day addresses that question in this chuck of The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder’s post:
Let’s face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.
Somewhat opaquely, Obama, a constitutional law lecturer, has said that the single most important qualification his appointments must possess is empathy for those who are less fortunate. In September, Obama told an audience that he is “committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives, judges who will uphold the values at the core of our Constitution.”
So what does this mean? Aminder again:
So would Obama appoint an academic? A long-time bench-sitter? Someone with a mixture of experience?
The new associate justice will probably be called upon to decide the constitutionality of Bagram airbase detentions, the scope of the government’s authority to define a national security fact, perhaps the status of gay marriage — and much more.
His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.
If Obama appoints a thoroughgoing liberal, Republicans will give him the fight of his life — though he might, by the time of the vote, have 60 Democrats to avoid a filibuster. A more moderate pick would disappoint his liberal base. In reality, Obama can appoint anyone he wants.
And indeed. Presidents don’t have a whole lot of opportunities to appoint Supreme Court justices, so will his choice tell us something fundamental about Barack Obama? And if he picks someone who conservatives don’t like, is he willing to go to the mat for it even if it means facing a possible fillibuster?
Yet another question is the impact on the GOP. The GOP is already losing members as independents soar. Many independents are GOPers who have left the party faithful fold. Some don’t agree with the Republican’s rightward drift and identification with the talk radio political culture. If Obama picks a “reasonable” choice and the GOP fights him tooth and nail, will that be yet another blow to the GOP in getting support beyond its shrinking tent?
Writes Hot Air’s Allahpundit:
I wonder if he [Souter] saved this as some sort of “100 days” gift to The One or whether he waited until the Democrats were on the brink of a filibuster-proof majority, just to make extra sure the GOP was powerless to stop his replacement. Whichever it is, needless to say, we’re at Obama’s mercy. The pick will almost certainly be a woman — at 48, Elena Kagan is young and the frontrunner as Solicitor General although Sonia Sotomayor’s name has been kicked around too — but beyond that, the sky’s the limit. The only “good” news is that Souter was one of the most reliably liberal votes on the Court. Barry O would have to appoint an out-and-out socialist, practically, to tilt it further left.
… Souter was like that movie character who shows up an enigma (thank you, George H.W. Bush) but turns out to be a pretty good guy by the final reel. It’s ironic this happens the same week that Specter switches parties — talk about the end of the road for moderate Northeastern GOPers!
For Obama, it’s a chance to try on some cosmetics. What do I mean by that? He’s going to replace a Republican dude who turned out to be a liberal with a Democratic female who we’ll know is a liberal. So the court will look different, but in terms of the law, nothing changes. Ironically, Obama could leave a huge stamp on the court, with two or three appointments in just the current term, without changing the ideology of the Supremes at all, because it’s the liberal wing with more age and health issues.
13 Responses to “Quote of the Day: On David Souter’s Resignation From The Supreme Court”
I think he will simply nominate the most qualified candidate available.
Oops, forgot.
That just happens to be a female, mixed-race, lesbian, differently-enabled, arose-from-poverty Liberal.
Obama can appoint whoever he wants; he certainly has the numbers to do so. And regardless of who he decides to pick, the right will be up in arms simply because the new appointee will be pro-choice. The right will be just as angry as the left was when Bush put through two conservative justices. At the end of the day though, the overall balance of the court will not change. It will be interesting to watch though as I expect the left to make the same arguments to defend the new appointee as the right did to defend the last two.
Yeah, the role reversal will be fun to watch. All the Justice Sunday folks who called for the “Constitutional Option” suddenly pushing for a filibuster. And will Democrats call up the nukular option?
Souter will stay on the court until his replacement is confirmed. And that will almost certainly be after Franken is seated.
Another oddity is Specter's former position as Ranking Minority Leader on Judiciary. Who does that leave now? And what of the staff?
AustinRoth:
“oink oink”
Elrod: “Another oddity is Specter's former position as Ranking Minority Leader on Judiciary. Who does that leave now? And what of the staff?”
I just read something on this, how now it may be more likely for the nominee to get held up in committee:
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2009/04/how-specters-d…
At least one member of the minority has to vote to proceed and Specter was undoubtedly that vote. But now as a Dem, he's just another vote. I honestly cannot imagine much for theatrics within the committee. If so, it will be fun to see the folks on the left start demanding an “up or down” vote while the folks on the right insist on their right to use the filibuster.
Elrod – The Judicial Committee is actually very interesting. Specter's party chnage may have unintended consequences, and prevent either an attampted filibuster or the nuclear option due to the nomination failing to get out of committee.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/s…
I hope this doesn't happen, though. I said when Bush forth his nominations that it is the President's prerogative to appoint what type of Justice he wants, and Congress should only stand in opposition if the candidate is not qualified (not simply holding views they object to) and I remain consistent in that viewpoint.
jchem – you beat me to it!
heh, looks like we're on the same page. I'm with you in hoping none of the garbage in committee happens. I'm of a mind to just let Obama to nominate who he deems most qualified; that's part of the duty of the President anyway. I can't imagine the committee going to any great lengths in holding the nominee up, but as I mentioned above, I'm not sure Obama will be able to nominate anybody who is considered acceptable by the right. Any further obstruction that the right tries will only further marginalize them, if that's even possible at this point.
I think the old axiom, “There are two things in life that are certain, death and taxes” can be amended to read, “There are two things in life that are certain, death, taxes and the Republicans opposal to anything Obama suggests.”
My guess is that Obama will choose someone more moderate, more appealing to the GOP. Obama takes a long view on these things, realizing that he will have future opportunities to appoint someone who is perhaps more liberal.
I agree that it will be interesting to see who Obama chooses since he is a constitutional law professor.
The math on that Stockboy would equal up to three, but we cannot set the bar too high for liberals.
CO, yes Obama may have up to three SC appointments but I think it's in everyone's best interest (including Obama and us as citizens) for a moderate or slightly left of moderate to be appointed. Though I would imagine that the right wing conservatives would want a conservative and the left would want someone on the left. But this country did vote for Obama and so I think the overall attitudes of the citizens as a whole are moderate to left of moderate and that's what should be reflected in the SC.
Let's face it, this whole “advise and consent” concept has gone in the crapper. The Democrats were wrong to hold up GOP appointees on partisan grounds, and the GOP will be equally wrong to do the same. It will be another circus sideshow, not something we really need these days. I wish the GOP would take the high road and just confirm whoever it is (assuming it's not an ax murderer or Harriet Meirs) and move on.