Justice Stevens retires – decision partially political, tied to mid-term elections
US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may be retiring for many reasons, but in his resignation letter, he implies the the 2010 mid-term elections were a factor.
Stevens’ resignation to the president reads as follows.
My dear Mr. President:
Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 371 (b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.
Most respectfully yours,
John Paul Stevens
Yeah, I know. Stevens specifically mentions the best interests of the Court, but I’m certain his politically left leanings had something to do with the decision.
Stevens will officially retire in late June. The court will begin its next session on Oct. 4, 2010, one month before the November mid-term elections. In my opinion, Stevens wanted to announce his resignation with ample time for President Obama to select a suitable left-leaning associate justice.
The Senate confirmation hearings for Stevens’ replacement this spring/summer should be quite interesting to say the least, but if Stevens’ replacement had his or her confirmation hearings pushed out after the mid-term elections, sparks would certainly fly and the president may be forced to nominate a more moderate justice.
Stevens does not want a more moderate associate justice, he wants an ultra-lefty, and he thinks that could happen with the current composition of the Senate.
###
Guess it’s retirement Friday in Washington.
3 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
I hope the Republicans dole out the same rasher of excrement that the Democrats handed out during Bush's (and Reagan's) appointments. You know, the usual "blood in the streets" and "coat hangers in the alley" style arguments.
It may just be my pessimism coming out, but I think Obama will get what he wants just like he always does. It will take the usual bullying of conservatives and complicity from the press, but he will get his way…unfortunately. And again, it's going to be "to hell with what the American people want" and continuing the left's agenda.
*sigh* It's always something, isn't it?
For a list of potential nominees, see the following AP story:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EVRBRO0…
ABC News Jake Tapper discussed the potential nominees on Friday. He described Elena Kagan as the one who was praised by Conservatives and Liberals alike. This so-called moderate candidate is "liberal on abortion and gay rights" but conservative on "presidential wartime powers". It's funny how the MSM views "moderate" or "centrist" opinion. Are the reporters in the MSM concerned about President Obama's use of wartime powers? I don't think so.