Dodger02WS6
Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30508968/
came across this while reading an article on NASA's Orion, comments?
came across this while reading an article on NASA's Orion, comments?
Is Souter retiring?
- Thread starter Dodger02WS6
- Start date
- Status
You beat me to it
Just read the same article. My exact inner dialogue:
"Here we go. This is gonna be the beginning of the next round. He'll appoint an an anti, and the next time the 2A comes up for review, they'll lean 5-4 the other way."
Brace yourselves, folks.
Hope I'm wrong.
Just read the same article. My exact inner dialogue:
"Here we go. This is gonna be the beginning of the next round. He'll appoint an an anti, and the next time the 2A comes up for review, they'll lean 5-4 the other way."
Brace yourselves, folks.
Hope I'm wrong.
JWF III
Member
Our local Fox news just said the same thing. Said he's considering leaving the bench at the end of June.
I'm not too up-to-date on the justices. I saw in the msnbc article that he voted more of a liberal side. Did this hold true in the Heller Case? Did he support the 2nd Amend. or not?
Wyman
I'm not too up-to-date on the justices. I saw in the msnbc article that he voted more of a liberal side. Did this hold true in the Heller Case? Did he support the 2nd Amend. or not?
Wyman
Geneseo1911
Member
Ummmmmm.........didn't Souter dissent on Heller? Isn't Souter one of the liberals everyone expected to retire in BHO's term?
lifted from wikipedia:
lifted from wikipedia:
Well, politely, you are wrong - Souter was no friend to the constitution or conservatives. He voted against Heller and no new appointment could, from a conservative viewpoint, be any worse, really.
The New York Times described him as "in the camp of jurists who view the Constitution as a flexible set of principles that can evolve." Meaning, if you let me paraphrase that, "we'll give you, the people, the rights we think you need at the moment."
No one knows who Obama may appoint. It may even be someone who can read the constitution and apply what it says instead of just interpreting it in their own way to suit their purposes. Heck, this could be a good thing.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Duck! Flying pigs!
Yep, Phil, it's really not a bad deal right now. The only justices on the horizon to retire are expected to be Souter (now the rumor is fact) and Ginsburg. Sadly, Ginsburg has a very bad cancer and it may be because of her health and not to enjoy her retirement, which is very unfortunate. Stephens has not said anything about it or dropped hints, but he is 88 or so, I think.
Basically, even if Obama chose very left wing justices for each retirement expected in his term, it can't change the courts balance overall, really.
Geneseo1911
Member
Maybe we'll get REAL lucky and he'll screw the pooch as badly as GHWB did when he appointed Souter in the first place.......
minor correction...
Justice Souter was a moderate jurist, appointed by a moderate Republican president.
No surprise really. The only surprise would have been to anyone who had been expecting a conservative activist from George H.W. Bush. That was never gonna happen.
President Bush was by no stretch of the imagination a movement conservative. Center-right at most.
--Shannon
Justice Souter was a moderate jurist, appointed by a moderate Republican president.
No surprise really. The only surprise would have been to anyone who had been expecting a conservative activist from George H.W. Bush. That was never gonna happen.
President Bush was by no stretch of the imagination a movement conservative. Center-right at most.
--Shannon
noskilz
Member
Or Swine Flew . . .
I seemed to remember Souter was a big disappointment for conservatives after Bush Sr. appointed him. The first thing I did was google his name and Heller to make sure how he voted. I guess us 2nd Amendment supporters dodged a bullet this time. Due to health Ginsburg should retire next. Hopefully the 5 remaining 2nd Amendment supporting justices will outlast the Obama administration.
mljdeckard
Member
Geneseo is absolutely right. Bush I said he very much regretted the Souter nomination. It was like he was a sleeper, who went through all the correct steps to make it onto the Court, and then unzipped his conservative veneer; "GOTCHA!" We won't miss Souter. Or Ginsburg. and remember, even if the current asministration did manage to tip the court the other way (as far as Heller would have been decided) it doesn't mean that a direct challenge to Heller will be anywhere near the SC in THAT timeframe. It might take DECADES. Don't worry about it.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Some people said that Obama could pick Hilary Clinton.....yikes!
Although her never being a judge makes that a near impossibility.
.
Some people said that Obama could pick Hilary Clinton.....yikes!
Although her never being a judge makes that a near impossibility.
.
bumm
Member
Since Souter is a liberal, no immediate damage will be done, but his successor and any other Obama appointees will be around for a LONG time to come. For anyone who's comfortable with this, think of it this way:
Our Second Amendment rights depend ENTIRELY on the continued good health of FIVE PEOPLE on the Supreme Court.
Marty
Our Second Amendment rights depend ENTIRELY on the continued good health of FIVE PEOPLE on the Supreme Court.
Marty
Was it Souter or Breyer who came up with the most "creative" (i.e. utterly intellectually and historically dishonest) dissent to Heller?
Note that most of the dissenters actually agreed with the individual rights interpretation, just not with the decision that the handgun ban violated RKBA.
One dissenter, however, wrote a separate dissent that was nearly incoherent and nothing short of a collection of lies.
Note that most of the dissenters actually agreed with the individual rights interpretation, just not with the decision that the handgun ban violated RKBA.
One dissenter, however, wrote a separate dissent that was nearly incoherent and nothing short of a collection of lies.
Being a strict constructionist is SO BORING. No room to express yourself. Being a liberal jurist allows you to be creative. If you can imagine it, you can make it true.
The Nine Lords giveth rights.
The Nine Lords taketh away.
Blessed be the name of the Nine Lords.
The Nine Lords giveth rights.
The Nine Lords taketh away.
Blessed be the name of the Nine Lords.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Now, once he gets back home to NH, we need to Kelo his arse - seems to me that that plot of land his house is on would make a dandy shopping mall location - and we know he's not one to stand in the way of progress and the greater good, as decided by the city council.
staghounds
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 18
Dont get excited, no gun law less restrictive than the DC one will ever be overturned by the USSC.
Heller makes it clear that the Court can accept anything less restrictive than a total ban as a reasonable regulation/restriction.
Heller makes it clear that the Court can accept anything less restrictive than a total ban as a reasonable regulation/restriction.
Phatty
Member
As much as I hate to admit it, there is a decent chance that your prediction could be accurate.
Phatty
Member
You do realize that George H.W. Bush also nominated Clarence Thomas, arguably the most conservative justice. Souter was a total unknown without a track record. Bush relied on personal references from people from N.H. as a basis to nominate Souter. As an unknown, Bush figured that Souter would be able to get approved by the Senate without much of a fight, which is indeed what happened. Souter started out as a "moderate" on the court, but progressed to the point where he is probably the most liberal member.
True, Thomas is a conservative,
And Bush Sr. put him on the Court. But Thomas' jurisprudence is a bit hard to figure out, at least to me.
I'd mark him down as a conservative minimalist, which is not true of all of the conservative justices on the Court. "Activist Conservative jurist" is not an oxymoron... but Justice Thomas isn't one.
Don't overlook the effect that the nasty fight over his confirmation had on President Bush, either. No matter whether you believed Anita Hill or not, and there's a lot of ambiguity there, the fight was as ugly as I've seen... nastier than Bork in many ways.
--Shannon
And Bush Sr. put him on the Court. But Thomas' jurisprudence is a bit hard to figure out, at least to me.
I'd mark him down as a conservative minimalist, which is not true of all of the conservative justices on the Court. "Activist Conservative jurist" is not an oxymoron... but Justice Thomas isn't one.
Don't overlook the effect that the nasty fight over his confirmation had on President Bush, either. No matter whether you believed Anita Hill or not, and there's a lot of ambiguity there, the fight was as ugly as I've seen... nastier than Bork in many ways.
--Shannon
Phatty
Member
I could understand that argument if Souter was nominated after Thomas and then Bush could reasonably have wanted to avoid what happened with Thomas. But, Souter was nominated before Thomas.
- Status
