ConfirmThem

Since the day Obama was elected, I knew there would be depressing days like this.

While I know there's very little likelihood of much daylight between them, can anyone rank them as far as least worst and worstest?

I'm so grateful for this site so that we can at least air our concerns about a nominee and new justice.

However much I might disagree with the president's choice and however much judges below SCOTUS were blocked under President Bush, I do believe that there should be an up or down vote on every one of his nominees. Of course, that point is looking pretty moot, with Specter the defecter and the likelihood of Franken[stein] "legally" stealing the election.

The decision came down to Jones and Souter. Such a monumental blunder. Even 18 years later it still rankles.

didn't Barr block Starr from being nominated?

It's days like these that make me happy about the way this site, and conservatives in general, stood up to the appointment of Harriet Miers. To this day, it still infuriates me. Just think of how we might feel today had Bush been able to force her nomination through. Miers, coupled with an Obama nomination, would have signaled true gloom and doom.

As my posts over the past four years show, I'm not a lawyer. I must admit that I haven't kept up with potential Democrat nominees either. The thought was too depressing. Given that, what can people tell me about Sotomayor. I believe she was a Reagan appointee to the district court, but became liberal and was elevated by Clinton. I know Wendy Long at NRO has called her a radical. Is that really the case, or just hyperbole?

Is she the best we can hope for from this president?

Whacker77: Sotomayor was appointed by Bush 41 to the District Court. Here's Ed Whelan's take:

Sotomayor is often painted as a moderate by virtue of the fact that President George H.W. Bush formally appointed her to a district-court seat. But, as I’ve explained before, when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

Thanks for the update. That's not encouraging, but not unexpected either. As we've said, we all knew this day was coming, but the reality of it still makes it depressing. Regardless, we just have to deal with whomever Obama appoints.

What upsets me most is the way the media has discussed this. Sotomayor is every bit the counterweight to Scalia, but none in the media are worried that she's too liberal. When a Republican names a nominee, all we hear about is the nominee being outside the mainstream.

Just as an extra, I am curious how others view JPS and retirement. I would assume he would want to retire under Obama, but maybe not. Robert Novak wrote a few years ago that JPS might want to leave the Court under a Republican because of loyalty to the president who appointed him. Is it possible, he waits until 2013 to see a Republican wins? Probably not, but I thought it interesting.

I am tired of the Meirs 'bashing'! I am glad Alito is on the court. I think Alito is a better justice than Meirs. But would Meirs also have been a good justice? I think so. But we will never know.

I think it is really strange there is still no official word announcing the retirement. When was the last time that happened? I can't think of a time. Wouldn't it be terrific if Souter got mad at the Obama White House for 'leaking' his secret, and changed his mind, and decided to stay for another four years?

Any thoughts on what the best we can expect from this president as a replacement? While I think all nominees deserve an up/down vote in the Senate, if the rules of the game has changed, we need to play according to the new rules. And so if the Democrats insist on keeping the fillibuster on the table, then Republicans need to play according to those rules, until the rules can be changed permanently, forbidding all fillibusters.

Here's hoping that the "Confirm Them! God Save the United States and This Honorable Court!" slogan is maintained for all sides of the political spectrum, and not just to make sure Republican appointees get confirmed.

I mean, I don't approve of filibusters for appointees--vote on the merits of the jurists past, don't deny a vote just because you know you'll lose--and I certainly hope the Republicans aren't too upset over the huge losses felt in 2006 and 2008 that they'd be willing to be the obstructionists they accused the Democrats of being back in 2005. That would be, of course, ludicrous, because the Republican party of today is certainly above that, as their approval ratings show.

What I mean to say is this: I hardly think that we're going to be seeing a vote on this any time soon. The Democratic party doesn't have a filibuster-proof majority (even with Specter & Franken, there are still 15 or so Democrats who buck the party line). That said, I do not believe the Republican leadership is actually interested in governing anymore. They're having far too much fun stopping governance.

looks like insider was right...only a few years too late

this doesn't really change things as the new Justice will be the same as Souter on all the big issues, of course they'll be there for another 20 years so we won't be able to replace them.

As for Stevens, I see him staying on to break all the records of Homes for oldest justice and Douglas for longest serving. Holmes was 91 and Douglas served 36 years. Coincidentally, Stevens breaks both if he serves through 2011. I see him retiring no earlier than 2011, unless health forces him to.

I don't see Breyer going anytime soon as he genuinely seems to enjoy being on the Court.

Ginsburg will retire next year I predict, especially if health forces her too, but she could stay a few more years.

The real issue is Scalia and Kennedy. They'll both be 73. Souter retiring doesn't affect things but if either of them go, the Court is pretty much finished for the next 30 years.

Things were so close under Bush and if only Stevens had retired or been forced to, the Court would have been fixed. Asx it is now, we just have to hope Obama is a one termer and that Kennedy and Scalia can outlast him.

My prediction for the new Justice is Sotomayor, Wood, or one of the professors(Karlan, Sullivan)

It's a little tough to distinguish your sarcasm from your serious points. Perhaps you could try that again.

The main point that I was perhaps too droll with was that I believe the Republicans and Democrats are playing this game, where whenever one is out of power, they act like little babies. One need go no further than to pass through the archives of this very site to see how childish the Democrats were in ceaselessly standing in the way of the Republican agenda between 2001 and 2006 (when the Democrats ceased to be the minority party). That is to say, whoever is in power, the other side seems hell-bent on keeping them from doing what the nation elected them to do.

This childish behavior is, I think, counter-productive at best, and at worst, standing in the way of what the American people want. When in 2006, moderates and liberals took over the Congress, the far right got just as upset with them as the far left did during their years of disenfranchisement. This is the nature of politics, but I do not think it's in the nature of the American people, who care less about the political ideology of a Supreme Court justice, and care far more about the chances of being able to run a small business, succeed in life, and die happy.

Both sides are dangerously good at playing the center against itself, evidenced in the recent "Tea Parties" of moderates railing against the left, or when anti-war protests broke out across the nation during the heights of the war in Iraq.

I think we, as citizens of this nation, should band together and, perhaps, dismiss this brinkmanship that both parties seem to have taken as modus operandii.

Unless, of course, it is the nature of this blog to be divisive. I am hopeful that is not the case, but if so, I cheerfully withdraw from attempting conversation. I say this mindful that ConfirmThem is intricately tied to RedState, the editor-in-chief of which recently claimed that "The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement." (source: https://twitter.com/ewerickson/status/1665491468)

This blog has always had commentors who have focused on judicial philosphy. Raw partisan hackery has not been a factor here until savndoren popped up. Thanks for ruining the streak.

Absolutely correct. Looks like Poppy screwed the nation for 50 years.

Rehnquist and O'connor clearly didn't politicize their retirements. Ginsberg and Stevens at least present the appearance that they actually enjoy their job and will go when they have to, not when the politics are right.

Heck, even Thurgood Marshall hung up his coat during an R administration.

Souter seems like something else, though. Looks like he hung on to the gift he got from the Bushes for 10 years only to explicitly screw them over for 8 more.