Does Justice Stevens care about justice or politics?

[Polk]

so they have all said it as explicitly as stevens? do you have a link?

also, i don't know if sandra would have cared who was president. she did not always vote conservative and she left primarily because of her husband.

Pick up Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call about the 2000 election. There is a sizable section where he talks about O'Connor's anger on election night that she'd have to stay on the bench for another four years if Gore won.

if that is true and she said that.....that is unfortunate. i know the high court is full of politics. it is not supposed to be. would you agree?

I think it would be ideal if it wasn't, but it's pretty silly to act as if it's not just as political as the other branches.

 

[Yurt]

Pick up Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call about the 2000 election. There is a sizable section where he talks about O'Connor's anger on election night that she'd have to stay on the bench for another four years if Gore won.

if that is true and she said that.....that is unfortunate. i know the high court is full of politics. it is not supposed to be. would you agree?

I think it would be ideal if it wasn't, but it's pretty silly to act as if it's not just as political as the other branches.

that is sad....because that branch is supposed to NOT be political....

but of course this thread is about a left leaning justice, so you do whatever you can to defend him. i got it....

 

[Polk]

if that is true and she said that.....that is unfortunate. i know the high court is full of politics. it is not supposed to be. would you agree?

I think it would be ideal if it wasn't, but it's pretty silly to act as if it's not just as political as the other branches.

that is sad....because that branch is supposed to NOT be political....

but of course this thread is about a left leaning justice, so you do whatever you can to defend him. i got it....

Why? There isn't anything to defend him from. He is, in effect, stating a preference for the kind of justice he'd like to see take his place. Putting on the robe doesn't rob him of his ability to have opinions and to voice them.

 

[Meister]

This is just politics with the Supreme Court. It's been done since I can recall, and will continue to long after we're all gone. If one drops dead while serving would be the only way to shake up the way it's done. No big deal

 

[xotoxi]

Justice Stevens says he'll retire in Obama's term

...

"I will surely do it while he's still president," Stevens told The Washington Post.

Justice Stevens says he'll retire in Obama's term - Yahoo! News

why does it matter if it "surely" must be cone while he is still president?

Why do you care when he decides to retire?

 

[GilbertArizona]

Justice Stevens says he'll retire in Obama's term

...

"I will surely do it while he's still president," Stevens told The Washington Post.

Justice Stevens says he'll retire in Obama's term - Yahoo! News

why does it matter if it "surely" must be cone while he is still president?

You are taking his words out of context. Justice Stevens use of the pronoun "he" instead of "Obama" certainly suggests it was the interviewer that put Steven's retirement plans in time frame of the President's term. I read the story provided through the link and also a few more, including this one in which he explains his reasoning for making the decision at this time:

At 89, Stevens Contemplates Law, and How to Leave It - NYTimes.com

 

[goldcatt]

Of course the Supreme Court is political. The Justices are political appointees who (more or less) reflect the leanings of the Presidents who appointed them. That said, I'd love to see a two- to three-Justice moderate swing bloc on the Court to balance out the extremes on both sides and (hopefully) have fewer purely political opinions issued. I doubt we'll see it. Clinton and Bush sure as hell didn't appoint any moderates, their bases would have skinned them alive if they tried - assuming they'd have wanted to in the first place. And I doubt Obama will be any different with his further appointments. Like it or not, that's the game.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He'd better retire before November 2010 because Dems are going to lose every Senate race

 

[jillian]

He'd better retire before November 2010 because Dems are going to lose every Senate race

No offense, but I think I'll go with Nate Silver, rather than your wishful thinking:

Democrats now project to hold an average of 54.0 seats when the Senate convenes in January, 2011, according to our latest forecast, and Republicans 46.0. This reflects a roughly one-seat improvement for Republicans since our previous forecast on March 10th.

Republicans now have about a 10 percent chance of taking an outright majority of Senate seats, according to the model, up slightly from before -- and about an 18 percent chance of getting to at least a tie. Democrats still have about an 8 percent chance, on the other hand, of recovering a 60-seat majority -- although obviously this would require a substantial shift in the national political environment. None of our analysis directly reflects any potential impact from the Democrats' passage of their health care bill.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Senate Forecast Update, 3/24

 

[jillian]

Of course the Supreme Court is political. The Justices are political appointees who (more or less) reflect the leanings of the Presidents who appointed them. That said, I'd love to see a two- to three-Justice moderate swing bloc on the Court to balance out the extremes on both sides and (hopefully) have fewer purely political opinions issued. I doubt we'll see it. Clinton and Bush sure as hell didn't appoint any moderates, their bases would have skinned them alive if they tried - assuming they'd have wanted to in the first place. And I doubt Obama will be any different with his further appointments. Like it or not, that's the game.

It's funny... Bush v Gore WASN'T political? But Stevens retiring is?

They're so funny....

 

[goldcatt]

Of course the Supreme Court is political. The Justices are political appointees who (more or less) reflect the leanings of the Presidents who appointed them. That said, I'd love to see a two- to three-Justice moderate swing bloc on the Court to balance out the extremes on both sides and (hopefully) have fewer purely political opinions issued. I doubt we'll see it. Clinton and Bush sure as hell didn't appoint any moderates, their bases would have skinned them alive if they tried - assuming they'd have wanted to in the first place. And I doubt Obama will be any different with his further appointments. Like it or not, that's the game.

It's funny... Bush v Gore WASN'T political? But Stevens retiring is?

They're so funny....

Oh no, didn't you know? Bush v. Gore was justice served up on a golden platter. No ducking, no weaving, no internal contradictions, no fictions, just pure wholesome goodness.

 

[George Costanza]

Of course the Supreme Court is political. The Justices are political appointees who (more or less) reflect the leanings of the Presidents who appointed them. That said, I'd love to see a two- to three-Justice moderate swing bloc on the Court to balance out the extremes on both sides and (hopefully) have fewer purely political opinions issued. I doubt we'll see it. Clinton and Bush sure as hell didn't appoint any moderates, their bases would have skinned them alive if they tried - assuming they'd have wanted to in the first place. And I doubt Obama will be any different with his further appointments. Like it or not, that's the game.

Your post raises an interesting question - at least to me.

If you could seat all nine of the Supreme Court justices, what would your ideal, political distribution be? All 9 liberals? All 9 conservative? All 9 truly neutral and independent? Four liberals, four conservatives with the CJ neutral and independent?

I would pick all 9 truly neutral and independent or 4+4 with the CJ neutral.

 

[goldcatt]

Honestly? I'd go 3-3-3.

Conservatives for roots. Liberals for innovation. And Moderates for common sense and negotiation.

That way nobody could get a majority on ideology alone, there would have to be at minimum compromise. Brokered by a bloc with equal voting weight and no dog in the partisan fight.

 

[George Costanza]

Honestly? I'd go 3-3-3.

Conservatives for roots. Liberals for innovation. And Moderates for common sense and negotiation.

That way nobody could get a majority on ideology alone, there would have to be at minimum compromise. Brokered by a bloc with equal voting weight and no dog in the partisan fight.

Hadn't considered that option. Not bad. I think everyone would probably agree that all 9 justices of one political bent would mean disaster.

 

[goldcatt]

Honestly? I'd go 3-3-3.

Conservatives for roots. Liberals for innovation. And Moderates for common sense and negotiation.

That way nobody could get a majority on ideology alone, there would have to be at minimum compromise. Brokered by a bloc with equal voting weight and no dog in the partisan fight.

Hadn't considered that option. Not bad. I think everyone would probably agree that all 9 justices of one political bent would mean disaster.

Never say "everyone".

But I think most rational people understand there has to be some sort of balance. It is interesting to think about how best to do that, isn't it?

 

[ihopehefails]

So your questioning why an 89 year old man believes he would "surely" retire in the next year or two?

I'm questioning why he waited until he was sure Obama would pick another liberal to be on the court. He could have retired any time during the Bush years. The other liberal justice pulled the same thing.