He hasn't hired any clerks for the next term, yet.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCOTUS_IS_SOUTER_HIRING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

All of the other Justices have hired clerks. Souter is pretty strange, for example, I think he only eats apples and yogurt for lunch, every day and he is known to be very private. Also, some think that he is wanting to step down and this might signal that.

I don't think his replacement will shift the court much, unless Obama is tricked and picks a Souter type "stealth candidate." He has enough votes in the Senate, so this is unlikely, though stranger things have happened.

Any thoughts, wishes, aspirations?

It makes sense that he waited until a Democrat was elected, considering he has been a fairly liberal voice on the court (even though Bush Sr. appointed him). WIll be interesting of course.

Many people think Obama's pick will be between Harold Koh and Elena Kagan, the latter having taken some interesting positions as SG. Whatever your politics, both are qualified for the job and at least Kagan doesn't have judge experience, which would be nice for once, although harder to know her positions.

Shit, he just did retire!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/

This should get interesting.

One thing we can all hope for is that Souter's replacement keeps Souter's Confrontation Clause and Car Search positions so that those areas continue to be revolutionized.

I want to add that I hope the GOP does not attempt a filibuster.

I don't know if they have the numbers to pull of a filibuster, but there is a 0% chance they will not vehemently oppose anyone Obama nominates.

By the time the vote happens, Franken should be in the Senate and they won't have the numbers to do it.

I did not say they would succeed in filibustering, I just said I hope the do not attempt it. They can attempt a filibuster and the Democrats should (assuming no Robert Byrd or Ben Nelson types vote in favor of filibuster) be able to defeat it and bring the vote to the floor. That would be both embarrassing and against their general view during the Bush nomination fights.

In fact, so long as Obama picks a qualified candidate, I think the Republicans should vote in favor of the pick. By qualified I mean someone who has the acumen and experience to tackle the job. Not someone I agree with more often than not.

Erm, nothing that they said during the Bush years counts for anything today. They once vowed to end the filibuster altogether when they were the majority, calling the process unconstitutional and the Democrats "obstructionists." Now they threaten to use it as the minority all the time. They repeatedly used reconciliation to pass bills on a majority vote instead of the usual 60, now they hate reconciliation and consider it a kind of tyranny and "horribly dangerous."

These are the guys who screamed about the "rule of law!" when Bill Clinton got a blowjob and went as far as impeaching him, but consider investigations into torture a "partisan witchhunt" and say that Americans should look the other way and "just move on."

So no, neither hypocrisy nor shame will deter Republicans from doing exactly what they opposed just three years ago.



Their one and only criteria will be the nominee's stance on abortion. Obama is unlikely to pick an anti-abortion nominee, of course, so this will be the starting point of their opposition.

Obama's initial thoughts:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/

Fair and balanced Fox News: "Obama would really have to appoint an outright socialist for him to find somebody more to the left of Justice Souter."

Fox news really sound like a scratched record with that socialist line. It also makes little sense in terms of a judge appointment like this since Socialism is an economic system mainly.

The GOP is already organizing to fight Obama, sending out emails and so on --

-- and they don't even know who the nominee will be yet.

That's the party of "No" for you. As Groucho sang in Horsefeathers: "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

Who said it?

As far as economic policy goes, Justice Souter is pretty much in the mainstream of the past 70 years of justices. He has defended IP in Grokster (Some liberals and libertarians are not fans of IP) and is somewhat on the "right" as far as securities law is concerned.

It is hard to classify justices as socialist when they simply affirm some regulation that Congress or a state has enacted. Now if they found a substantive due process right to income or health care or a home, like Justice Marshall seemed to be in favor of, that justice might be called an outright socialist.

Yes and if Bush was president there would be people screaming about abortion before Bush nominated anyone. Both parties would act in more or less the same way in this situation.

Steve Doocey and Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends



Carlson backed up Doocy's comment by citing Souter's siding with Planned Parenthood in Planned Parenthood vs Casey, and with the Gore team in Gore vs Bush as evidence of his liberalism.

Siding with Al Gore and Planned Parenthood are what make him a socialist.

Yes, Fox News are idiots.

Red State.com's Erik Erickson: The nation loses the only goat f*&king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement.

I hate when people who know 2-3 Supreme Court cases (Bush v. Gore, Roe, Casey/Miranda) opine about it. I don't mean to sound like and elitist or a technocrat, but it nonetheless irritates me.

One good thing about the Souter retirement is that it could lead to cameras inside the court. Souter was very opposed to them.

Karl Rove then: Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political architect, said precedents from the most recent Supreme Court vacancies suggest that opposition-party senators have a responsibility to back a president’s choice if they believe a nominee is qualified, even if they disagree with the person’s views.

Karl Rove today: "On the other hand, [Sonia Sotomayor] is also likely to draw opposition from conservatives because her opinions on the Circuit Court of Appeals have been very liberal and very expansive. In fact, this is going to be one the big dividing lines. President Obama…said he wanted a judge who would uphold the Constitution, but also a judge would be empathetic. These two things are in conflict."