Skip to comments.Former Justice Stevens: Supreme Court Justices Should Consider Politics in Retirement Decisions
Posted on 04/20/2014 9:32:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Sunday that politics should be a factor in justices decisions on when to step down from the nations highest bench.
Its an appropriate thing to think about, Mr. Stevens said in an interview on ABCs This Week. If youre interested in the job and in the kind of work thats done, you have to have an interest in whos going to fill your shoes.
Some liberal experts have pressed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at 81 is the oldest sitting justice on the court and has had health issues, to step down this summer to ensure President Barack Obama can appoint a Democratic justice who can be confirmed by a Democratically-controlled Senate before Novembers midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Obama wants Holder on the Court.
This has been his plan since 2008
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“Obama wants Holder on the Court.
This has been his plan since 2008”
That I believe. He’s DESPERATELY trying to get Ginsberg off the Court, before it’s too late - especially with the Senate set to go Republican.
Stay health Ruth. I want you to collapse at President Cruz’s inauguration.
The days when the courts rule important cases on the law and not ideology are long past. Everything is politics now and we all need to treat it as war like the Rats do as they live and breathe 24 hours a day.
I know that hasn't been the case historically. But it's very wrong to see partisan politics blatantly advocated by a former justice.
This why he hasn’t gotten rid of him.
Well at least he was candid enough to shred any pretense of objectivity.
Do you know how many Republicans voted against Ginsburg?
I do believe that too...they will rubber stamp any nominee. Otherwise, it would be ray-sis.
Happy Easter Day and Happy Passover Remembrance, Everyone.
Ginsburg was confirmed by something like 92-3 if I recall correctly.
Even though she had a major background as legal counsel for the ACLU, her nomination was not strongly challenged by anyone at the time.
Ditto. McCain will say “Holder is a good man and will not be bad for the country.”
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a republican president nominate Holder.
Sometimes I think I can’t be shocked by things.
But I must say, I was shocked to hear that liberals want Ginsburg to step down because they want Obama to appoint a younger liberal.
What’s with these liberals? Ruth can’t die off fast enough for them? They are that afraid that a radical liberal can’t be confirmed by the Senate with more Republicans after November, or God forbid, have that replacement appointed by a Republican president in the future?? What are they really saying?
At the time that all Republicans save 3 voted to confirm her, she was the most radical and least qualified nominee in history.
Hang on RBG. . .wait until a republican president. . .hold on. Nap all you want. . .just stick around til then.
Being female provides a cloak of protection that would not fit for WM nominations, no matter the legal and ‘wise WM’ resume.
So confirmation hearings for Holder and a Senate vote leading into the midterms?
Expect any GOP criticism of him to be overblown and presented as racism in order to drive up Dem base turnout. And if Republicans don’t go after him the Conservative base gets pissed and stays home. All emphasis on Obamacare gets knocked out of the political equation.
Desperation scenario by the Dems to keep the Senate. But one with an excellent chance of working.
Stevens is increasingly proving that he’s a complete a**. This isn’t talking about political considerations to keep the SCOTUS seat Democrat/Liberal: it’s about politicizing the nomination/confirmation process to swing an election in another BRANCH.
“The days when the courts rule important cases on the law and not ideology are long past.”
Exactly. Their oath to uphold the law and the constitution is so absurd that it shouldn’t even be mentioned. The SCOTUS is nothing more than a mini-legislature.
Any time I get complacent about “couldn’t shock me” I just remember “our esteemed colleague” John McCain. He will badger and harass any pubbie who dares to object to a Witholder nomination to SCOTUS.
Souter’s final act of treason was retiring while a Democrat was in office.
Exactly. The idea of the Senate GOP, even if they were in the majority, ever ‘Borking’ a Democratic SCOTUS nominee is laughable. They don’t have the spine.
For his genocidal pro-abortion decisions former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be tried, convicted, sentence, and hanged for treason and crimes against humanity. With every breath, Stevens is nothing more than an oxygen thief.
So we can get another Judas Roberts.
I remember Howard Philips testifying before the Judiciary Committee, point out that Souter had voted, while on the board of a hospital, to perform abortions.
Philips argued that that showed that Souter was a man of evil character. Which is, of course, just common sense.
Orrin Hatch blew a gasket. “We don’t make these decisions that way.”
Of course, Souter proved to be solidly pro-abortion, and a weirdo.
Hatch is one of those “pro-life” politicians who insist that “there are good people on both sides of this issue.”
Baloney. Pro-aborts are evil people. Imagine being capable of saying that people who want to murder babies are “good people”!
Fair point, ,might get one. . but if we have The Messiah making the pick. . we WILL get a socialist Marxist, constitution-hating internationalist for sure.
anyone named Hatch should never support abortions.
You think this country isn’t in the tank when a total corrupt man that should be in prison can become a Justice to the SC.
If this is all the intelligence (stevens) needed to be on the SCROTUM most freepers are more qualified. The ONLY consideration is the Constitution period.