David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick
 

I am super excited that Obama gets a Supreme Court pick, because with the Congress leading democrat, this should be fun, too bad Souter is generally on the liberal wing though (being the most moderate of them), when will Thomas retire... WHEN?!?

here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...ing/index.html

Thomas will not retire anytime in the next 4 years or 8 if Obama wins a second term.

The conservatives on the court are all in pretty good shape for the foreseeable future.

But I do believe the Dems have enough to pack the Court if they get desperate.

There has been speculation for a while that this was coming.

And yeah, don't look for Thomas to retire anytime soon.

oh, i know thomas won't but what is wrong with wishful thinking?

Exactly. Souter has always been a pretty private guy, and he's never really enjoyed the spotlight that comes with being a Court Justice. Now he can retire back to New Hampshire and live a quiet life, without the attention of the DC scene.

SCOTUS Blog has a good rundown of Souter and his legacy here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice...ere/#more-9387 .

I tend to agree that Sotomayor or Wood will be the nominee; both are brilliant, and neither is all that controversial. I'm unsure whether he would elevate Kagan so soon after making her Solicitor General, but who knows.

Why would Clarence Thomas retire during a Democratic administration? Some of the liberal and moderate members of the Court may retire now, so we can expect that the conservative justices would wait until they could guarantee that someone like-minded would take their place. Clearly, O'Connor's retirement was an exception, but she retired more for family health reasons.

One of my professors went to Oxford and HLS with Souter; they apparently became life-long friends. Souter spoke at my professor's memorial service back in September. He had some great stories--a really funny guy.

Plus O'Connor was kind of a weird case; while she was really a big swing vote and pretty moderate overall on the Court, she is personally Conservative. There's a great scene in one of the Court books (maybe "The Nine") about her celebrating on election night when Bush beat Gore. Part of it was her husband's health, but part of it was her desire to have her replacement chosen by a Republican.

Of course, at the end of the day Souter is a great example of how SCOTUS picks can be vastly different than expected. It's funny to hear about all the protests from womens rights groups, and to see statements from John Kerry about Souter's nomination.

I'd like to hear Souter speak; I dealt with someone all the time in Boston who was a former Souter clerk, and he said that he was a very engaging guy.

ETA: It's funny, Above the Law (and Underneath their Robes) both were reporting that Souter was the only Justice who hadn't picked his clerks for the upcoming terms. Now that makes a lot more sense.

One of the reasons I was saying that there had been speculation he was retiring.

That seems to be a popular consensus, since they are great women with Chicago ties... their names are popping up a lot in the political blogs

4-1+1=4

How young will Obama go with the replacement is the real question?

Probably not any younger than Kagan (who is in her late 40s). If a President wants to put someone on the Court with an eye towards longevity, but with solid legal experience, choosing someone in their 40s-early 50s is usually the way to go (see Thomas, Roberts, Stevens, etc.).

On a side note, Roberts is engaging as well. He has a great sense of humor and is far more personable than I think most people would expect.

They're all definitely brilliant and well-qualified for the position. No matter what, I would imagine that Kagan will end up on the Court at some point (unless she gets involved with some scandal or ethical/legal issue).

Looks like it's Sotomayor: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nia-sotomayor/ .

I'm slightly surprised, only in that I thought it would be Kagan or Wood. I suppose, though that it's not that surprising: I know there were some questions about Wood's age, and Kagan's young enough that if another vacancy opens up (Ginsburg or Stevens) during Obama's presidency, she can be brought forth as a nominee (with some good non-academic experience to boot as Solicitor General).

ETA: She'll probably sail through the confirmation process; there's really only one controversial opinion (the Riccio firefighter case), and she made a remark a few years ago about judges making policy. Otherwise, she's got the credentials and a fairly impressive life story.

And she's a Type 1 diabetic :). I wonder if she wears a pump or if she takes injections.

I have to ask the obvious GreekChat question... is she Greek?

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.

Probably not, as she attended Princeton. Although Princeton has greek organizations, they are not recognized by the University; they're also pretty recent, someone who was there in the early 70s may not have had the opportunity to do so.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor"

switch some of those words around and people would go apeshit crazy.

I completely forgot about that quote. It was in response to a question about how Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg have said that a wise old man and wise old woman should reach the same conclusions in deciding cases. There was also a statement at a panel discusision for soon-to-be judicial clerks where she talked about how it's the job of appeals judges to make policy. Both are situations where she should have chosen her words more carefully, but I'm not sure that either will make a difference in the confirmation process.

One thing that bugs me about this; I think President Obama is making things slightly harder for her in that he keeps harping on her background and upbringing. I know it makes for good press with the public, but he should just stick to the fact that she's very smart and thinks well on her feet, has an excellent academic background, and has been a successful federal district and appeals judge. At the end of the day, those are the things that will be most important when she sits on the SCOTUS bench, and he's just setting her up for a ton of questions from Republicans about whether she'll let her personal experiences outweigh her respect for the law.

The line is actually from the 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at UC-Berkeley School of Law. While I'd agree that the words could have perhaps been chosen a bit more prudently, here -- as is so often the case -- context is everything.

Here is part of the speech:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. . . .

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

The entire lecture is much longer.

(And reading the whole thing, I'm not sure but what the line in question wasn't intended to get a laugh.)

Thanks for posting; the quote makes a lot more sense there, especially looking at the next paragraph - at the end of the day she's extremely qualified, and it will probably end up being a side note that's repeated ad nauseum throughout the confirmation hearings.

I love Supreme Court history and talking about the Court, but I absolutely hate the confirmation hearings.

I love Supreme Court Bobbleheads from the GreenBag. Brandeis is the newest one, I'd like to see Thurgood Marshall soon.

I agree: I think I'm beyond bugged and it gets to be offensive. The person just ends up becoming a token.

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

I probably wouldn't have said exactly that the media can't stomach the idea of successful black or Hispanic people with middle class backgrounds, but I agree that they oversell the up from nothing background story when the person's politics is correct. If you are conservative, forget it; it's just assumed that your were middle class or rich, it seems to me.

On the one hand, I'm a fan of giving Black and Hispanic kids successful people of originally meager means and similar ethnicity to look up to. On the other hand, why the love affair with people starting out poor? Sure, it's great when people overcome adversity, but how many of us are really born with silver spoons in our mouths? How many people in the last 50 years got to the level of Supreme Court nominee without having sincere personal accomplishments, Harriet Miers excepted?

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

The thing is, he's said that, but Sotomayor (as well as the other rumored nominees) is extremely qualified. Yeah, she may have the "ability for empathy," whatever that means, but she's also got one heck of a resume.

That's part of my problem, which I think was echoed by Munchkin - by focusing on these touchy feely things, it ends up seeling someone short who has the brains and professional background for the job (like Sotomayor). At the end of the day, the reason she is up for the spot is mostly because of her accomplishments.

Wasn't Cardozo the Court's first hispanic?

Some folks count Portuguese as "hispanic." I have no earthly idea why, but they do.

Eh, these same people think they speak Spanish in Brazil!

eta - wait, aren't Brazilians considered hispanic? Now I've confused myself . .. so, slightly off-topic - what is required to be labeled "hispanic"?

I dunno.. IMHO, it's a sort of convoluted, invented racial classification which has little to do with culture and ancestry and more to do with the fact that the white people see you as being from the "here be dragons" part of the map.

[Edited to reflect my re-reading what you all said]

I honestly have no opinion about her experience. I don't know much about her. I'm not nearly as into SCOTUS (or courts generally) as you are. My general impression as a conservative is that there were far worse judges out there and she's going to be confirmed so let it ride.

Rather than "ability for empathy,"Obama's words, according to a NYT column were, “'I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.' That kind of judge, Obama explained, will have empathy: “I view the quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient fo arriving at just decisions and outcomes.'” (I googled and used this because it's quoted in the NYT; I haven't even read the whole column it's quoted in:http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...w/?ref=opinion)

I think he's set her nomination up to be framed that unfortunate way for sure, but there's a big part of his base, as Munchkin notes, that's into that.

According to the wikipedia entry I was reading, it's not even firmly established that you can trace Cardoza's family history to Portugal although it was the family tradition.

I had been told at one point that if you were Spanish you weren't Hispanic, so I wouldn't think that being descended from folks from Portugal would make you Hispanic either, not only because of the language issue, but because it's an issue of the colonial relationship.

ETA: upon more reflection, I can't remember who told me that or why I regarded him or her an an authority, so it's pretty much without value, I guess.

I don't think when that happens that it diminishes her accomplishments at all. If anything it goes to show that not everyone has to come from a privileged background in order to be successful. I'm really not sure why it would be an issue if Obama chooses to highlight the fact that she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth since she is qualified.

I don't really remember anyone back in 1991 playing up Clarence Thomas's background when it's just as humble, if not more so, than Sotomayor's. There's a double-standard for sure, but it's also probably based on the fact that GHWB's base wasn't into the "back story" the way that many liberals are.
The fact that he was a good jurist was enough for the GOP back then--why isn't it for the left wing today?

Per that same Wiki article, it appears that all that is known for sure is that his grandparents were Sephardim -- which would suggest that the families came from either Iberia (Spain or Portugal) or northern Africa -- and that the name Cardozo is a common Portugese surname.

Per the dictionary:

Hispanic = Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America; of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

Brazil would be Latin American but not Hispanic.

Judge Sotomayor affirming herself and the experiences she brings as she moves through the world as a Latina is not a negation of white men or anyone else.

I wouldn't go so far as to label it a double-standard -- I remember personal background and the rise from humble beginnings being talked about quite a bit for Thomas as well.

Nor would I call it a conservative vs liberal thing, necessarily. Way too tidy.

It has only been 48 hours or so since the news broke. It's premature to start comparing the coverage of Sotomayor to that of Thomas (or anyone else) unless you're going to limit the comparison to the first 48 hours of coverage on Thomas. In those first few days, media-types haven't necessarily had time to pour over her decisions to get a feel for her jurisprudence, so they focus on what they can talk about quickly -- background and personal story. Meanwhile, when Obama talks about the "empathy" factor, he is talking in terms of jurisprudence, not just "what a great story."

Whether background and personal story will continue to occupy the media's attention through the confirmation process remains to be seen.

From OMB Directive 15, it's much less clear.

Note that the two bolded statements conflict with one another. This sort of goes to my point (if I didn't make the point earlier, I meant to) that "Hispanic" is a completely artificial racial classification.

As do I. There was much talk about him 'pulling himself up by his bootstraps' leaving the segregated south (some small town in SE GA near Savannah--can't remember the name) to go to school in the North, etc. And if I remember correctly he was totally or partially raise by a single parent with the help of his grandfather who was uneducated. The somewhat unspoken narrative I remember was "see, black people can be against affirmative action (even if they were helped by it)!" Of course that was until Anita Hill came along and then all bets about his background were off. Then it was all 'high tech lynchings' and such.

Yeah, I was going with the basic dictionary definition. Some of what I looked at noted that government definitions/classifications might be more . . . convoluted.

Just to muddy it up more, the basic dictionary definition of latino/a means anyone from Latin America (which would include Brazil), while government/census-type definitions equate latino/a with Hispanic.

And just to add the icing, some definitions would include Haiti and Quebec in Latin America -- the "Latin" referring to use of a Romance language.