While not wanting to minimize the affair, I find that most justices are the same in the sense that the come from the power structure and thus serve the power structure once they reach the court. Sure, there are differences, and I don't want to minimize them; however, in the end they will mainly support government and power at the expense on the individual and liberty.
Anyway, I think this was the second signal I got, but I'm too tired and overwhelmed to search for it.
"Stevens nearing a decision; Supreme Court justice considers his departure" by Adam Liptak, New York Times | April 4, 2010
WASHINGTON — Justice John Paul Stevens, in his Supreme Court chambers on Friday afternoon [and] reflecting on his reluctance to leave a job he loves after almost 35 years, said his calculus seemed to be weighted toward departure, and he said his decision on the matter would come very soon.
“I do have to fish or cut bait, just for my own personal peace of mind and also in fairness to the process,’’ he said. “The president and the Senate need plenty of time to fill a vacancy.’’
Hints about Stevens’s possible departure started in September, when he confirmed that he had hired only a single law clerk, instead of the usual four, for the term that will start this fall. In occasional public statements since then, Stevens, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, said he had not yet made up his mind.
And if something keeps tacking to the right, tacking to the right, what does that make the "liberal" wing -- other than impotent as all liberals seem to be?
I'm not drying to divide, I'm trying to open eyes like mine were opened.
But the White House is bracing for a summertime confirmation battle, the second of the Obama presidency....
That will suck up a lot of MSM time, space, and print!
Stevens, who will turn 90 this month, said he did not like to give interviews “because it saves an awful lot of time if you don’t.’’ But he was courtly and candid in reviewing the trajectory of his tenure on the court and in summing up what he had learned about the role of the judge in American life.
Just the kind of people we CAN NOT AFFORD to LOSE!
Like last year’s selection of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace the retiring Justice David Souter, this change would be unlikely to remake the court’s ideological balance.
Related: The Sotomayor Shift
New Hampshire Souts Him Just Fine
I know how he feels.
But the matter would in some ways have more resonance, if only because of Stevens’ seniority and mastery of the court’s machinery. Appointed in 1975 by President Ford, Stevens was in those days considered a somewhat idiosyncratic moderate. These days, he is lionized by the left.
How far you guys have fallen -- and perhaps that was the whole point of what I consider an entire wing of controlled opposition fronts (or dupes if one was to be kind).
Of course, the righties have their outfits as well, and the best advice I can give anyone is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, your OWN THINKING!
But Stevens rejected those labels on Friday, saying that his judicial philosophy was a conservative one....
Should Stevens step down, the court will lose its last member who served in World War II and is steeped in the values of that era.
No, please, not again.
“It really was a unique period of time, in the sense that the total country, with very few exceptions, was really united,’’ Stevens said. “We were all on the same team, wanting the same result. You don’t like to think of war as having anything good about it, but it is something that was a positive experience.’’
(Blog editor's heart just dropped to his heel. The liberal lion of the left? Where have I heard that one before?)
Yes, readers. I'M JUST SAD NOW!
--more--"
"High court’s leading liberal to retire, setting the stage for confirmation fight; Obama vows to replace Stevens with candidate of similar qualities" by Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 10, 2010
WASHINGTON — John Paul Stevens, who was named to the Supreme Court by a Republican president but emerged over three decades as a liberal counterweight to an increasingly conservative majority, said yesterday that he will retire after the court’s current term, setting up an election-year nomination showdown on Capitol Hill.
Known for his bow ties and sharp writing style, the 89-year-old associate justice had signaled in recent weeks that he wanted to depart in time to allow President Obama and the Senate to replace him before the court’s next term begins in the fall....
Bow ties signal independence, don't they?
Stevens’s replacement could be asked during future terms to vote on the constitutionality of the Democrats’ sweeping health care overhaul, as well new cases involving campaign finance and abortion. In addition, the court this fall is slated to hear a closely watched First Amendment case centering on whether antigay protestors can be kept at a distance from funerals of soldiers....
Related: Clear the Court: Laboring at the Supreme Court
Clear the Court: Signing the Campaign Checks
Republicans Retreat on Health Bill Repeal
Yeah, we shall see if that even gets there.
Speculation about a replacement immediately focused on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, a former dean of Harvard Law School, as well as US Court of Appeals Court judges Diane P. Wood, 59, and Merrick Garland, 57, all of whom received various levels of vetting in last year’s search for a new justice. Because the court’s five-member conservative-leaning bloc will remain intact, Obama does not have an opportunity to immediately alter the direction of the court. Rather, he is expected to nominate someone who will maintain the ideological status quo, which has resulted in a number of 5-4 decisions in recent years....
Tack right!
If the experience of Obama’s successful nomination of Sonia Sotomayor last year is a guide, it will take several weeks to name a nominee, and then two to three months to get from nomination to confirmation....
I guess I'll type to you then, readers.
--more--"
