Obama Vows ‘Independent’ Replacement for Souter

[ixion]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — Justice David H. Souter formally told the White House on Friday that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term in June, a development that stirred intense interest about who his replacement will be and how the change will affect future court rulings on abortion and the balance between personal liberty and national security.

President Obama praised Justice Souter and his record on the court, and said he hoped to have a new justice confirmed by the Senate by the time the court reconvenes in October.

Promising to nominate a replacement with “a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity,” Mr. Obama, who startled reporters by walking to the lectern for a cameo appearance in the middle of the daily White House press briefing, said that he would look for a candidate for whom the law was not a matter of abstract theory, but a force that affects real people in their daily lives.

He took no questions, and offered no clue about the choice of a new justice, always one of a president’s most lasting decisions. But even before Justice Souter’s letter was delivered to President Obama in mid-afternoon, the speculation about a successor was rampant, with much of the attention focused on women or minority candidates. Reports of Justice Souter’s deccision to retire first emerged Thursday evening on National Public Radio.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/02court.html?hp

---

Why are Dems constantly bending over backwards to assure RW Fascist bastards that they will appoint "independent" or "impartial" people, all the while the RW does nothing but promote ideologues to the exact same positions?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Nobody who has appointed a judge has ever said "I'm going to appoint someone who thinks exactly like

I do."

They *all* claim they are appointing independent thinkers. Bush did this too.

[Cha]

17. bush lies like a dirty old rug..

I have a feeling Prez Obama wants an Independent thinker.

[No Elephants]

21. To the contrary, Bush emphasized that he did not want to appoint someone who might change views

once on the bench--a fairly obvious reference to his father's appointee, Justice Souter. If he had claimed Harriet Meiers to be an independent thinker, he would have been laughed out of D.C., never mind impeachment.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. He was almost laughed out of DC for Meiers.

This is true about Souter, but any hint at his love of ideologues was hidden under rhetoric like "won't be an activist judge" or "no litmus test".

[No Elephants]

35. Yes, by Republicans. But not because he claimed she was "independent."

[Bankhead_ATL]

2. Independent’ w/ left leanings

[ixion]

5. as opposed to hardcore RW true believers

it does not strike a balance, IMO.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Bush didn't present Alito and Roberst as RW true believers, he presented them as Indpenedent

That's what presidents do.

[ixion]

11. Branding means nothing... neither were independent

both were true believers. You knew, and I knew it, but nobody with access cared enough to call him on it.

That's the rub, as they say.

[No Elephants]

22. Here are Bush's remarks on the Alito nomination. No mention of Sam's independence. None.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Sam Alito did mention his sister Rosemary's independence, though. Perhaps that is what you recall.

No mention of independence when nominating Roberts, either. http://santiago.usembassy.gov/OpenNews/asp/pagDefault.a...

No mention of independence when he nominated Harriet Meiers, either, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-03-bush... or when he mentioned Alberto Gonzalez as a possiblity to fill the seat that went to Roberts. (Senate Republicans mentioned Roberts before Bush did.)

If you have anything to back up your insistence that Bush presented his picks as independent, I would sure love to see some links.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. He presented them as independent with words like these:

"Judge Alito's nomination received bipartisan support and he was again confirmed by the unanimous consent by the United States Senate."

Calls to their fairness, etc.

In other words, if you didn't follow politics and you trusted Bush, you could easily think that these were moderates. He certainly didn't go up there and state that they would be hardline RWers even though everybody who knew anything about them knew they would be.

Likewise, Obama is not going to say he's looking for liberals. He's going to say he's looking for someone that knows the law, etc. etc. etc.

The only thing to do is see who he nominates. Rhetoric in this means very little.

[No Elephants]

36. Not the same thing at all.

[Wapsie B]

3. I personaly want someone who will make rwingers forget all about

their anger for people like Hillary. A Liberal with a capital L. No placating the repugs, not now not ever.

[ixion]

4. yeah, that would be a nice change

from the DLC types who will no doubt get the nod.

[ErinBerin84]

7. some people can't help themselves from being pre-emptively disappointed.

[angstlessk]

8. hell, "excellence and integrity" says no RW'er will ever be nominated

by Obama, ever!

[safeinOhio]

9. Best suggestion I've heard that fills the bill

Anita Hill.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Owwwww, That would zing Cousin Clarence.

[No Elephants]

23. That would be fun, but teaching at Oral Roberts University gives me pause. And, I'd like

someone younger.

[Zenlitened]

10. Lousy, lousy headline by NYT. Should read "independent-minded"

... if they were trying to capture the essence of what he said. Which is a HUGE distinction. Nothing in his quote, IMO, suggested he was talking about political party registration/identification.

From the Associated Press, via NYT:

''Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.

"I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.''

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/01/us/politics/...

[kimmylavin]

12. Thank you.

He didn't say anything about political leanings, he said he wants someone with an independent mind, ie, someone who can think for him/herself.

[elleng]

18. There's quite a science to writing headlines, imo,

but unfortunately few have studied it and fewer papers hire such.

Have to check her bio, but does this sound like Sotomayor already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

[No Elephants]

24. I don't think anyone assumes voter registation when "independent" refers to a SCOTUS justice.

[SpartanDem]

13. Are you stupid?

You expect him to come out and say directly yeah I'm gonna appoint an ideologue?

[ixion]

14. No.. you miss my point

I'm just saying it always seems like the progressives have to bend to the will of rethugs, yet rethugs never reciprocate.

I don't necessarily want an ideologue. I'd prefer an truly independent mind on the SCOTUS. But show me one who is truly independent and I'll show you a person who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of sitting on that particular bench.

[Psephos]

15. rethugs say the same thing, natch

it's a side-effect of having an ideological perspective

I wouldn't worry too much about what kind of candidates Obama will consider....

[No Elephants]

26. Not necessarily. Please see Post 22, replying to a claim that Bush said the same thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. ROFL

OP = Made of stupid.

[No Elephants]

29. Deleted by No Elephants.

[No Elephants]

25. Enjoy false dichotomies?

[soryang]

19. How about Judge Bybee?

He's okay right?

[No Elephants]

27. .....

[No Elephants]

28. I don't care about rhetoric. I care that Obama does not appoint another

so called "moderate," like his only other judicial appointment so far. I urge people here to contact their Democratic Senators and the White House.

IMO, no issue is more important to a Presidency than judicial appointments. Judges far outlast Presidents, especially if a President is canny enough to appoint young judges.

[SpartanDem]

33. What's wrong with David Hamilton?

nt

[firedupdem]

32. I'm hoping he appoints someone with a sharp and independent

mind! No matter the spin, this President is not going to appoint someone who doesn't share his values or ours. I'm not even concerned with it.

[No Elephants]

34. The one judge he has appointed does not share my values.

[TankLV]

37. Great - THEY get EXTREME RIGHT WING NUT JOBS, and we get "moderates"...

I want BALANCE, and "moderate" is NOT "balance"...

but I still support Obama overall...and generally trust him - he hasn't disappointed me too much so far...

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Well, I'd be happy with someone quite "independent" of the sort of

"thought" processes shared by Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Frankly, someone truly intelligent and independent is likely going to rule in ways we'd like.

And there's also the fact that many a justice has been selected, with the idea that the president understood his positions - only to completely turn around once in the seat. Souter was appointed by Bush Sr., and partly because Bush thought he'd be a secure anti-choice vote. Oh, but once Souter actually was in a position to rule on it, and looked at the law independently and thoughtfully, not with political calculations in mind, he surprised the righties.