Supreme court justice souter to retire

[rbell]

Well, we'll be swapping one liberal for another here, so not much will change...except they'll likely be younger.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

I doubt there will be much of a debate, since the balance of power won't swing with this...and even if Republican's want to argue...they don't have the numbers.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Souter to Retire From Supreme Court

Justice David Souter tells the White House he will retire when the Supreme Court's current term ends in June, a source says. Souter, 69, has served on the court since 1990. His retirement will give President Barack Obama his first pick for the nation's highest court. Court watchers expect Obama to choose a woman.

http://news.aol.com/article/supreme-court-souter-retiring/457602

 

[LeBuick]

Well, we'll be swapping one liberal for another here, so not much will change...except they'll likely be younger.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

I doubt there will be much of a debate, since the balance of power won't swing with this...and even if Republican's want to argue...they don't have the numbers.

I'm not sure how much the republican's can argue, they gave us Souter. So if Obama replaces Souter with a Souter then they should be well pleased.

 

[matt wade]

I'm not sure how much the republican's can argue, they gave us Souter. So if Obama replaces Souter with a Souter then they should be well pleased.

Souter started off conservative and has moved to the left over a period of years.

 

[LeBuick]

Souter started off conservative and has moved to the left over a period of years.

I think that's the problem, left or right has no place in the courts. It makes a mockery of the word justice. Perhaps that is why the Lord tells us not to judge.

 

[matt wade]

I agree, we shouldn't have left or right on the courts. We should have people that uphold the constitution no matter what. Unfortunately, that's not always the case and the terms left and right help us identify which will and which won't unhold the consitution in certain circumstances.

 

[carpro]

Obama will appoint a socialist ideologue.

I just wonder if he or she will also be a tax cheat.

 

[Robert Snow]

Souter started off conservative and has moved to the left over a period of years.

That's the problem. Since a Justice is appointed for life, it is difficult to know what they will do in the future.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is why that election was so important, and why those who supported Obama were wrong. With the resignation of Souter, the candidate McCain would have nominated would be far different than the one Obama would nominate. Rather than maintaining "balance," we could see a shift towards the constitution. But some people placed their own personal agenda ahead of doing what is right.

 

[BigBossman]

If Obama were smart he would require a litmus test before choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

 

[LadyEagle]

Merged 2 threads. LE

 

[LeBuick]

I agree, we shouldn't have left or right on the courts. We should have people that uphold the constitution no matter what. Unfortunately, that's not always the case and the terms left and right help us identify which will and which won't unhold the consitution in certain circumstances.

So I guess right means upholds the constitution and left means doesn't. There is the other part of the problem. Everything "right" isn't right and everything left isn't against the constitution. The constitution is a fluid document and not static. It was designed to be changed.

 

[LeBuick]

This is why that election was so important, and why those who supported Obama were wrong. With the resignation of Souter, the candidate McCain would have nominated would be far different than the one Obama would nominate. Rather than maintaining "balance," we could see a shift towards the constitution. But some people placed their own personal agenda ahead of doing what is right.

You saying Souter was contrary to the constitution? Do you have examples of this?

Keep something in mind, 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican's. Implying they have some gift of selecting someone special is ludicrous at best. They picked all but two.

Lastly, "the candidate McCain would have nominated would be far different than the one Obama would nominate" which is why McCain didn't win the election. I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to come to grips with. The majority of American's went to the polls and voted against McCain's nomination.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Souter started off conservative and has moved to the left over a period of years.

Perhaps he became wiser with age.

Show me anyone who does not change one way or the other as they become older and I will show you someone who does not think and has no introspection.

I heard O'Connor in an interview say that she was almost forced toward the left by radical ideas of other newly appointed justices. One interesting aspect was that she and the justice she usually disagreed with the most was they were good friend and socialized together. I find that refreshing and Christian and democracy in action.

Just because people differ on important issues does not mean they cannot be friends.

Pastor Larry said: But some people placed their own personal agenda ahead of doing what is right.

I doubt that is true and if it is then that person is not qualified to be a justice. A SC court justice has to put personal beliefs aside and rule on what is legal or illegal according to the law of the land. They are not to rule because they want it to be that way. Go back and read the records of testimonies of justices and you will find this is said, in various ways, over and over. The rulings of the court is about law, not personal feelings.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You saying Souter was contrary to the constitution? Do you have examples of this?

Kelo for one as I recall, in addition to numerous rulings on Roe and others. He was well known as a part of the liberal part of the court.

Keep something in mind, 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican's. Implying they have some gift of selecting someone special is ludicrous at best. They picked all but two.

Five of the seven are decent, and four seem to be superb. They don't have a special gift, but the chances are certainly better. The two others were appointed by Clinton and are embarrassments to the court (though Breyer is a fascinating interview).

Lastly, "the candidate McCain would have nominated would be far different than the one Obama would nominate" which is why McCain didn't win the election. I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to come to grips with. The majority of American's went to the polls and voted against McCain's nomination.

Couple of things: First, they didn't vote against McCain's nomination. He was already nominated. That's how he was in the November election. Second, the Majority of American voted against Obama as well, many by showing up and the rest by not showing up. The idea that the majority of Americans voted for Obama is ludicrous. Third, judicial nominees is probably not why McCain lost. It was hardly talked about. However, judicial nominees is why those who love America should have voted for McCain.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I heard O'Connor in an interview say that she was almost forced toward the left by radical ideas of other newly appointed justices.

This shows what a bad justice she was. She wasn't ruling on the law itself. She was basing her rulings on the positions of others. The idea that the conservative ideas were "radical" could not be more misplaced. Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand the role of SCOTUS. Their job is to rule on the law; not make it up. The radicals are the one who make up laws. The conservatives are called such because they desire to conserve the law. If the legislature wants the law to be different, don't depend on teh court. Write the law and pass it.

One interesting aspect was that she and the justice she usually disagreed with the most was they were good friend and socialized together. I find that refreshing and Christian and democracy in action.

I don't know how Christian it is. I certainly won't vouch for OConnor's Christianity. It is just common decency.

Just because people differ on important issues does not mean they cannot be friends.

Indeed. It would be nice if more people here understood that.

I doubt that is true and if it is then that person is not qualified to be a justice.

My point wasn't about justices. It was about voters who voted their selfish interests (supposedly financial which has turned out to be a farce) against the good of the country and the direction of the courts.

A SC court justice has to put personal beliefs aside and rule on what is legal or illegal according to the law of the land. They are not to rule because they want it to be that way. Go back and read the records of testimonies of justices and you will find this is said, in various ways, over and over. The rulings of the court is about law, not personal feelings.

Yes, this is what they say but it's not what they actually do. Obama has said (apparently) that he wants a justice who understands poor people. Why? When did that become a part of ruling on the law? That's just a dumb thing to say. The law has to apply equally to all. The poor or downtrodden (whatever that means) do not get special treatment. Hopefully he has gotten some sense somewhere. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[rbell]

I think that's the problem, left or right has no place in the courts. It makes a mockery of the word justice. Perhaps that is why the Lord tells us not to judge.

This statement is wrong on several levels.

First, right or left does make a difference. If you doubt such, compare the US to, say, Albania in the 1980's. Then get back to me.

Second, you are taking Matthew 7:1 out of context. The point is not to judge...it is not to judge unrighteously.

 

[carpro]

This shows what a bad justice she was. She wasn't ruling on the law itself.

That's what Obama wants, although it's extremely doubtful he would appoint one like O'Connor. Regardless of her shortcomings, she wasn't an ideologue.

"Empathy" is one of the Obama requirements, no matter what the Constitution says.

Ignore the Constitution. Make your own law,based on "empathy", is his only real requirement.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's what Obama wants, although it's extremely doubtful he would appoint one like O'Connor. Regardless of her shortcomings, she wasn't an ideologue.

"Empathy" is one of the Obama requirements, no matter what the Constitution says.

Ignore the Constitution. Make your own law,based on "empathy", is his only real requirement.

Actually she probably was a better justice when she saw the right wing new justices ruling from their feelings and not from law.

I find it amusing how many conservatives scream foul when the court does not rule their way, but want the court to overturn already established law. Is that not ruling from feeling and not from law?

 

[rbell]

God help us all.

Obama's short list includes the incompetent, bigoted, scary Janet Napolitano.

If he nominates her, he's either profoundly incompetent, or demented. Maybe both.