Ginsburg in worse health than Rehnquist... Souter possibly retiring too

[Richard]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8391

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes bitch, retire already.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/022278.php#022278

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes you son of a bitch, you retire too already!

In an ideal world, we'd see over the next 2 years something like this:

O'Connor -> replaced by the unfilibusterable Janice Rogers Brown

Rehnquist -> replaced by Luttig

Thomas -> elevated to Chief Justice

Ginsburg -> replaced by Garza

Souter -> replaced by Edith Brown Clement, perhaps?

[J. J.]

I have heard so many rumors from "good sources" in my life that were false that I now ignore them all.

Edit:  RUMORS

[Defarge]

These are quite possibly the most reputable and trustworthy sources I have ever seen.

[Cashcow]

These are quite possibly the most reputable and trustworthy sources I have ever seen.

[Richard]

I have heard so many tumors from "good sources" in my life that were false that I now ignore them all.

We can hope.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a compassionate conservative, wishing that all of the not wingnuts on the court retire or die.

[Sam Spade]

These are quite possibly the most reputable and trustworthy sources I have ever seen.

[Frodo]

These are quite possibly the most reputable and trustworthy sources I have ever seen.

[Richard]

What a compassionate conservative, wishing that all of the not wingnuts on the court retire or die.

Die?  I said die?  Where?

[ATFFL]

What a compassionate conservative, wishing that all of the not wingnuts on the court retire or die.

Die?  I said die?  Where?

You thought it!  You BASTARD!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What a compassionate conservative, wishing that all of the not wingnuts on the court retire or die.

Die?  I said die?  Where?

You seem to want them off the court, and are linking to non-reputable sources that say their health is bad.

[MaC]

What a compassionate conservative, wishing that all of the not wingnuts on the court retire or die.

Die?  I said die?  Where?

yeah, he did say retire.  Don't tell me you wouldn't like some conservative justices retiring and liberal ones being put in jfern.
No, it's not a strawman, it's the truth.

[MODU]

Ok, so say these all come to pass.  Four vacancies in one year?  That has to be a record.

[Peter]

I follow Justice Souter pretty closely, and I believe that there was some truth to the suggestion that he had considered stepping down in the past.

A couple of years ago, his judicial activity dropped right off the radar - he was writing less and less, and most of what he did write was per curiam stuff. In the last session however, his activity has popped back up, a lot of dissents and a few important opinions. Quite what was wrong I'm not sure; I heard rumours about poor health, but I didn't really believe that.

Also, I've got to wonder what he expects to do in NH if these rumours are true, he's a bachelor after all, and other than that as far as I'm aware he spends his time hiking up and down hills, which he won't want to do the entire time.

[AuH2O]

Ginsburg is in poor health, that's common knowledge. She is likely to retire in the next few years, by choice or nature.

Souter I doubt retires until at least after the 2008 election. Stevens wants to stay on and is in good shape for someone his age... but he is old and health problems can develop quickly.

[Democratic Hawk]

I hope Ginsburg and Souter (along with Stevens) hold on until there's a consensus building pragmatist - not beholden to ideological folly -  sitting in the Oval Office

Dave

[A18]

Because you want a liberal activist who will legislate from the bench, obviously.

[Democratic Hawk]

Because you want a liberal activist who will legislate from the bench, obviously.

Not at all. I wouldn't want liberal activists or conservative activists particularly on the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter

Clinton was a pragmatist and Bush an ideologue - and frankly, I trust pragmatists to act in a consensus-building fashion than ideologues. Ideology is divisive and to be honest has no place on the bench. Of course, Bush can show a bit of metal by not appeasing his conservative base but that's his prerogative

A moderate conservative in the fashion of retiring Justice O'Connor to replace her would do. I certainly don't think either progressive loons or reactionary nuts ought to determine rulings

In case, you haven't noticed I'm not exactly an advocate of liberal judicial activism - nor ever will be. I believe it's the job of legislatures and/or referenda to make laws not the judiciary

Dave

[A18]

Judicial philosophy is an ideology, by definition.

Clinton appointed two very liberal judges to the bench, one of whom replaced an anti-Roe vote. That's not consensus building. Bush will appoint someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he said he would throughout the campaign.

[12th Doctor]

No, in a perfect world Ginsberg would be replaced by Robert Bork.

[MODU]

Judicial philosophy is an ideology, by definition.

Clinton appointed two very liberal judges to the bench, one of whom replaced an anti-Roe vote. That's not consensus building. Bush will appoint someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he said he would throughout the campaign.

and stated today that abortion will not be a prerequisit on determining who his pick will be.  Do I believe that?  Not sure, but it has already stirred some of his supporters.

[WalterMitty]

quetion:  when will souter come out of the closet?

[AuH2O]

I am confused as to why Souter was nominated despite being of questionable sexual orientation.

[Peter]

Clinton appointed two very liberal judges to the bench, one of whom replaced an anti-Roe vote.

Whilst I agree as to Ginsburg, Breyer is not "very liberal", and I typically cast him as a moderate liberal just to the right of David Souter.

quetion: when will souter come out of the closet?

Indeed. There is certainly a reem of circumstancial evidence to suggest he is gay, and I tend to think he is, though this is more because I want to believe that there could be a gay SCJ than any truly objective analysis.

[A18]

Eh:

Liberal wing—Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg
Conservative wing—Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist
Swing votes—Kennedy and O'Connor