Sinfest

[mouse]

so supreme court justice david souter is retiring - at the quite young age of 69. he tends to be one of the liberals, so obama's choice shouldn't change the conservative/liberal distribution. but hey - we needn't let that stop rampant speculation!

i like to think of who else might go in the next 4 years. the current lineup:
chief justice roberts, 54, conservative: probably in for anther couple decades, at least.
john paul stevens, 89: currently seems to most consistently be the swing vote. on age alone, he should be the next one going.
antonin scalia, 73, conservative: he looks like the kind that will hang on until death, if not after.
anthony kennedy, 72, conservative
clarence thomas, 60, conservative: he's never struck me as much of a worker. maybe he'll decide to retire at 65?
ruth bader ginsberg, 76, liberal: recent bout with pancreatic cancer; although it seems to have been caught early, and the prognosis is good, her health may make her leave sooner than she might want to.
stephen breyer, 70, liberal
samuel alito, 59, conservative.

my betting would be that stevens will retire before the end of obama's first term; ginsberg might as well. the hard-core conservatives unfortunately, are the youngest - scalia, at 73, is over 10 years older than dubya's picks, and as supreme court justices go, not all that elderly. that would make kennedy, at 72, the best shot for making some change in the makeup of the court.

of course, the conservatives are already lining up to insist on a conservative nominee - which undoubtedly means working hard to shoot down everyone else, since i can't see obama nominating someone they would actually approve of.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

[CTrees]

But hey, with a little luck, they may not be able to successfully filibuster Obama's nominees!

[ShadowCell]

Either that or he'll pick people who opined much on the sort of issues that conservatives' panties in a wad. With nothing to bitch about, they'll pretty much have to let the nominee go through if there's no question of competence.

Downside of that, of course, is that you may have no idea who you're appointing to the court.

[mouse]

well, apparently you never do - there seem to be a number of justices who ended up ruling in ways that made the presidents who nominated them quite unhappy.

actually, i think souter is one of those - he was nominated by bush I.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

[Sam]

If the republicans had gone along to some degree with Obama's tactical bipartisan 'olive branch', they could have used this as a litmus test for the reality of Obama's bipartisanship and exercised greater control over the moderacy of Obama's pick to replace souter.

As it is though they've sorta jacked that opportunity :/

[Mindslicer]

Had their been such an olive branch, that might be the case.

[nathan]

After years of hearing that anyone who opposes the president's position - for whatever reason - is intentionally "coddling terrorists," and is knowingly and willfully acting against the interests of their own nation, what exactly are the criteria by which we are defining a political "olive branch?"
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust

[CTrees]

[Sam]

[Mizike]

Um, Kennedy is the swing vote on this court. He leans slightly conservative but he's still the swing.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

[Mindslicer]

[kamineko]

[Mindslicer]

Ah, the 'but the other guys did it too!' response. Predictably immaterial.

Democrat or Republican, that's not the right way to govern, and they both should be vilified for it.

[Major Tom]

[Mindslicer]