PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Steven considers retirement


cr250chevy
03-15-2010, 10:23 PM
delete if dupe...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191&ps=cprs

How would this effect our future on gun control? (I don't know how he voted for the D.C case on handguns....)

kf6tac
03-15-2010, 10:45 PM
delete if dupe...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191&ps=cprs

How would this effect our future on gun control? (I don't know how he voted for the D.C case on handguns....)

He was in the minority in Heller (i.e. he voted to uphold the ban). For the cases that are in the pipeline right now it wouldn't have a big effect if he retired, since he'll most likely vote against incorporation in McDonald anyway. The real concern is that if he (or any of the other anti-gunners on the Court) retires while Obama is president, he'll get replaced with a younger, equally anti-gun Justice who will then proceed to hold that seat on the Court for a long, long time.

berto
03-15-2010, 10:48 PM
Stevens was on the wrong side of Heller. His retirement would do nothing to change the current balance of SCOTUS. It would however result in an Obama nominee likely to serve well into the future. I would guess he goes at the end of the this term instead of waiting another year because the Senate might be different come November. Obama's pool yielded Sotomayor last time and is unlikely to spit out a 2A friendly nominee.

cr250chevy
03-15-2010, 10:49 PM
got u, thanks for the info!:rockon:

Liberty1
03-15-2010, 10:51 PM
It would however result in an Obama nominee likely to serve well into the future.

Ford nominated Stevens so one can never tell...

berto
03-15-2010, 11:17 PM
Ford nominated Stevens so one can never tell...

It seems the other side has all the luck as far as SCOTUS justices going goofy. Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter.

madhatter
03-16-2010, 12:00 AM
I can't believe him. WE have not got a ruling from the court about 2a.

On what it will mean if the handgun ban is overturned

"It would mean that no state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. What that means is hard to say. Does that mean that you and I have the right to buy a Stinger missile? Does that mean we have the right to buy a tank? My sense is I don't think that's what the Supreme Court is going to mean. But they are going to have to refine what they mean by 'keep and bear arms' over many years, and this area of the law which had been settled for decades, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms is suddenly wide open. And gun control is not just politically on the ropes; it is legally very much in question everywhere."

2009_gunner
03-16-2010, 12:29 AM
Amazing...

Souter was a Bush I appointee, and Stevens was a Ford appointee.

Heller should have been 7-2, and neither of these justices should have retired under the most liberal Pres ever.

kf6tac
03-16-2010, 1:52 AM
Amazing...

Souter was a Bush I appointee, and Stevens was a Ford appointee.

Heller should have been 7-2, and neither of these justices should have retired under the most liberal Pres ever.

Yep. And Kennedy, the perpetual swing vote, was a Reagan appointee. So was O'Connor, back when she was a swing vote on the Court. I'm glad we replaced her with Alito.

AndrewMendez
03-16-2010, 2:29 AM
Is it just me, or when you think about a case has gone as far as SCOTUS, that these Judges should leave their personal opinions out of the equation. i.e. The Chicago Handgun ban, how much more unconstitutional could it be? When it reached SCOTUS they should have slammed it down, as unconstitutional the very same week, with incorporation for the 50 states! It disgust me that these politicians can choose how to interpret the constitution! [rant off]

dixieD
03-16-2010, 4:53 AM
Is it just me, or when you think about a case has gone as far as SCOTUS, that these Judges should leave their personal opinions out of the equation. i.e. The Chicago Handgun ban, how much more unconstitutional could it be? When it reached SCOTUS they should have slammed it down, as unconstitutional the very same week, with incorporation for the 50 states! It disgust me that these politicians can choose how to interpret the constitution! [rant off]

Yes one would except for "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sotomayor, UC Berkeley. Personal experiences and adherence to them is now the new rubric.

The Director
03-16-2010, 7:33 AM
Is it just me, or when you think about a case has gone as far as SCOTUS, that these Judges should leave their personal opinions out of the equation. i.e. The Chicago Handgun ban, how much more unconstitutional could it be? When it reached SCOTUS they should have slammed it down, as unconstitutional the very same week, with incorporation for the 50 states! It disgust me that these politicians can choose how to interpret the constitution! [rant off]

What do you mean? You mean you don't think that when a blatantly unconstitutional law makes it across their desks that these geezers can't strap on a set of nuts and make a decision the same day?

Oh no.....they have to debate it ad nauseam. Then go and write opinions and talk about it for months behind closed doors. Then render a decision in June! How nice it must be to not be accountable to anyone. Even though we'll get the decision we want this time, it will come at a cost of wasted time and the machinations of a slow moving machine.

If corporate America worked like SCOTUS did, there would be no industry.

The justice system in this country is totally broken, totally useless. And come June, we'll be saying...Oh yeah! SCOTUS gave them the smackdown...wohoo!.....when in reality, due to the minutiae of a hog tied court system, the Chicago ban was allowed to stand since 1982 unchecked by any court.

It's the same thing as that Rodney Alcala creep who has had three trials and been sentenced to death three times over the last several years. Now he'll appeal his latest death sentence for the next decade or two, dying in prison.

Is there any justice anymore?

/Rant off.

vantec08
03-16-2010, 7:51 AM
Indeed, ANDREW -- witness ruthie buzzie ginzberg who stated publicly that she tempers all decisions with "is it right." Right? according to WHOM?? HER?? Talk about a personal decision rather than legal one . . . . ... .

yellowfin
03-16-2010, 7:59 AM
Indeed, ANDREW -- witness ruthie buzzie ginzberg who stated publicly that she tempers all decisions with "is it right." Right? according to WHOM?? HER?? Talk about a personal decision rather than legal one . . . . ... .
Her sense of right and wrong is highly suspect at best if she thinks Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank are defensible and binding on that scale.

N6ATF
03-16-2010, 8:54 AM
First Roberts, now Stevens? Wish they would make up their minds.

Window_Seat
03-16-2010, 10:06 AM
I've asked similar questions before, but is this likely to happen prior to November?, and if so, would a confirmation be likely before then?

Erik.

cadurand
03-16-2010, 10:09 AM
You guys are assuming they are being asked a YES or NO question.

Which they are not.

They have to write a decision which will be analyzed for a very long time after they are all dead.

Their words have to set the rules for determining if future laws are violating the 2nd Amendment or not.

So they can't just say "Not constitutional!" and say nothing else.

What would that help? They need to tell us where the line is drawn so law makers can know what is OK and what is not.

I know 3 months seems like an eternity but do you really want a major decision like this to be rushed? I know I'd want as much time as I could have to get a decision like this right. They only get one shot at it.

berto
03-16-2010, 10:57 AM
First Roberts, now Stevens? Wish they would make up their minds.

Roberts never said he was leaving. The rumor was started by a law professor who made a comment to his class as part of a lesson on sources, facts, etc. It went viral because a few students didn't get the point of the lesson and the idiot media/bloggers did exactly what the professor was warning against.

All signs point to stevens leaving but he hasn't confirmed. It's a ll speculation.

berto
03-16-2010, 10:58 AM
I've asked similar questions before, but is this likely to happen prior to November?, and if so, would a confirmation be likely before then?

Erik.

The term ends in June. Stevens would likely retire after the term ends so a replacement could sit for the beginning of the term that begins in October.

Window_Seat
03-16-2010, 10:59 AM
You guys are assuming they are being asked a YES or NO question.

Which they are not.

They have to write a decision which will be analyzed for a very long time after they are all dead.

Their words have to set the rules for determining if future laws are violating the 2nd Amendment or not.

So they can't just say "Not constitutional!" and say nothing else.

What would that help? They need to tell us where the line is drawn so law makers can know what is OK and what is not.

I know 3 months seems like an eternity but do you really want a major decision like this to be rushed? I know I'd want as much time as I could have to get a decision like this right. They only get one shot at it.

+1,000

And this makes as much sense as the reason I won't take my vehicle to "Jiffy Lube". I would love to see a 150 page long favorable decision in 2 days, but it will not happen until we have "Beam me up Scotty" technology. Meanwhile, I will wait until the end of June patiently, because I'm (cautiously) optimistic.

Erik.

yellowfin
03-16-2010, 11:05 AM
The term ends in June. Stevens would likely retire after the term ends so a replacement could sit for the beginning of the term that begins in October.Could it be that he might actually be siding with our side in McDonald and doesn't want to be around to be held to it?

elenius
03-16-2010, 11:07 AM
The term ends in June. Stevens would likely retire after the term ends so a replacement could sit for the beginning of the term that begins in October.

I don't think the senate will have time to approve a new judge by then. I wonder if even the current senate will have time, i.e. before the new senators come in. I imagine they would try to cram it through before they lose a bunch of D senators.

berto
03-16-2010, 12:31 PM
I don't think the senate will have time to approve a new judge by then. I wonder if even the current senate will have time, i.e. before the new senators come in. I imagine they would try to cram it through before they lose a bunch of D senators.

It will be tight but it's certainly possible for a Stevens replacement to be confirmed prior to the start of the next term or shortly thereafter. Brennan and Marshall retired at the end of the term and both of their replacements were confirmed by late October and Robert's confirmation was expedited. In any case, Stevens could model his retirement after O'Connor's and serve until his replacement is confirmed. Drawn out confirmation shenanigans are possible but would look bad and do little to really impact Obama's choice.

kap
03-16-2010, 1:24 PM
What do you mean? You mean you don't think that when a blatantly unconstitutional law makes it across their desks that these geezers can't strap on a set of nuts and make a decision the same day?

Oh no.....they have to debate it ad nauseam. Then go and write opinions and talk about it for months behind closed doors. Then render a decision in June! How nice it must be to not be accountable to anyone. Even though we'll get the decision we want this time, it will come at a cost of wasted time and the machinations of a slow moving machine.

If corporate America worked like SCOTUS did, there would be no industry.

The justice system in this country is totally broken, totally useless. And come June, we'll be saying...Oh yeah! SCOTUS gave them the smackdown...wohoo!.....when in reality, due to the minutiae of a hog tied court system, the Chicago ban was allowed to stand since 1982 unchecked by any court.

It's the same thing as that Rodney Alcala creep who has had three trials and been sentenced to death three times over the last several years. Now he'll appeal his latest death sentence for the next decade or two, dying in prison.

Is there any justice anymore?

/Rant off.

Be careful what you wish for.

The mechanisms of our government are meant to make the process slow and thoughtful rather than emotionally filled knee jerk reactions. The process is not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives. Look at some of the laws that get passed based on knee jerk reactions. Many restrictive gun laws ... the Chicago gun ban.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/07/04/the-history-of-oak-parks-handgun-ban-all-because-of-one-shooting-in-chicago/

dantodd
03-16-2010, 2:27 PM
It will be tight but it's certainly possible for a Stevens replacement to be confirmed prior to the start of the next term or shortly thereafter. Brennan and Marshall retired at the end of the term and both of their replacements were confirmed by late October and Robert's confirmation was expedited. In any case, Stevens could model his retirement after O'Connor's and serve until his replacement is confirmed. Drawn out confirmation shenanigans are possible but would look bad and do little to really impact Obama's choice.

Well, drawing the nomination out past next January might make a big difference as there is a possibility that the Senate will look very different and this in and of itself might significantly change who President Obama chooses to nominate.

dantodd
03-16-2010, 2:28 PM
Could it be that he might actually be siding with our side in McDonald and doesn't want to be around to be held to it?

Be held to what?

Sitting on the Supreme Court is a job of great consequence and one of no consequences.

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 3:40 PM
Having one of the most anti-gun libs come up for replacement is a good thing isn't it?

Are there judges out there that are more liberal? Plus, we might get lucky and get a lib appointed judge who flips to constructionist.

berto
03-16-2010, 3:43 PM
Well, drawing the nomination out past next January might make a big difference as there is a possibility that the Senate will look very different and this in and of itself might significantly change who President Obama chooses to nominate.

Assuming Stevens announces late June/early July we'd be looking at drawing out the process for 6+ months. Sure Obama's numbers are in the dumper but it's a tough sell explaining why a SCOTUS confirmation hearing should be held up procedurally while waiting for election results with the potential to shift the Senate's balance. The possibility of shenanigans might influence Obama's thought process but he'll pick another nominee from the previous list that spit out Sotomayor. Republicans would have to weigh the potential backlash vs. the reward of maybe getting a slightly better nominee if they retake the Senate. Stakes would be different if it was one of the conservative seats.

socal2310
03-16-2010, 4:17 PM
It seems the other side has all the luck as far as SCOTUS justices going goofy. Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter.

...O'Connor

I'm sorry, while I remain committed to Hanlon's Razor, that's too much "luck".

Ryan

a1c
03-16-2010, 5:49 PM
Obama is going to pick a liberal as a replacement, but not some hippie UC scholar who quotes foreign law or wants to systematically question stare decisis.

He's going to pick someone who will be easily confirmed like he did with Sottomayor, who will have qualities that the left will like but nothing sticking out that will repulse conservatives. The last thing the Dems need is to force some liberal wingnut down the throat of the Republicans and be seen as bullies just a few months prior to the elections.

Remember, Obama is a constitutionalist by trade, and he's much more of a centrist than both his avid supporters and sworn enemies want him to be. He will most likely pick a liberal, but not some activist who's going to pour arsenic in Scalia's wine glass.

Aegis
03-16-2010, 7:37 PM
We can only hope he retires after January of 2011 when the Democrats lose control of the house and senate. Hopefully by then, the Republicans will have the spine to stand up to Obama and shut down the confirmation of a terrible justice like Sotomayor who bases legal decisions on emotion and a radical agenda rather than the constitution.

blkhat1069
03-16-2010, 8:43 PM
Remember, Obama is a constitutionalist by trade, and he's much more of a centrist than both his avid supporters and sworn enemies want him to be. He will most likely pick a liberal, but not some activist who's going to pour arsenic in Scalia's wine glass.

The President is a Constitutional Lawyer/ Scholar not a Constitutionalist.
He Believes the founders Got it wrong by making the Constitution Limit what the government can do to you, and not give the Federal Government Power to do for you.

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 9:28 PM
We can only hope he retires after January of 2011 when the Democrats lose control of the house and senate. Hopefully by then, the Republicans will have the spine to stand up to Obama and shut down the confirmation of a terrible justice like Sotomayor who bases legal decisions on emotion and a radical agenda rather than the constitution.

By almost all accounts, during her confirmation, Sotomayor does not base decisions on emotion or racial agenda. I would have preferred a strict constructionist myself, but nothing in her record really stood out as liberal activist.

Maestro Pistolero
03-16-2010, 9:41 PM
It would be almost impossible, even for Obama, to do worse than Justice Stevens. His Heller dissent was an embarrassment to liberal jurisprudence, and that is saying a lot.

Apocalypsenerd
03-16-2010, 11:45 PM
It was a 5-4 split. How would other liberals find the dissent embarassing?

I know he invented a new definition to one of the words to make the dissent make sense, but besides that.

ALSystems
03-16-2010, 11:53 PM
Big It would be almost impossible, even for Obama, to do worse than Justice Stevens. His Heller dissent was an embarrassment to liberal jurisprudence, and that is saying a lot.
As hard as I think it would be for Obama to find someone worse than Stevens, I think he will manage to do just that. Supreme Court nominations can do lasting harm because we're stuck with them for the next 30 years or so.

Maestro Pistolero
03-17-2010, 12:58 AM
How would other liberals find the dissent embarassing?I don't think liberals regretted the dissenting vote at all, but the text of the dissenting opinion was torn to shreds in the majority opinion. The dissenters lacked even a veiled attempt at intellectual cohesion. I really think Stevens is losing his marbles.

Aegis
03-17-2010, 6:32 AM
By almost all accounts, during her confirmation, Sotomayor does not base decisions on emotion or racial agenda. I would have preferred a strict constructionist myself, but nothing in her record really stood out as liberal activist.

I guess we will see her true character with the McDonald ruling. My bet is she votes against incorporation.

Apocalypsenerd
03-17-2010, 11:58 AM
That wouldn't actually show her true character. This case, it might be considered liberal no matter how a justice votes.

yellowfin
03-17-2010, 2:48 PM
You don't know if Sotomayor's a liberal activist with rabid anti gun inclination??? Try reading the opinions coming out of the 2nd Circuit and the state of the laws in the states therein. That should tell you what you need to know.