Question about each candidate's Supreme Court preferences:

[tedoll78]

First, here's the situation regarding the retirement outloook of the court:


Liberals:
Stephens --> Nominated by Ford in 1975, he was born in 1920. He's been having some health issues lately, and his wife is constantly begging him to retire. Should he leave the court during a Republican presidency, look for the battle over his replacement to be very Nuclear (with a capital 'N')!
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/6158158.htm

Souter --> Nominated by Bush I in 1990, he was born in 1939. (To my joyous surprise, he was the shock of the Bush I administration.) There are few rumors about him retiring anytime soon.

Ginsburg --> Nominated by Clinton in 1993, she was born in 1933. She's had cancer as her health issue, but there are few rumors of her retiring.

Breyer --> Nominated by Clinton in 1994, he was born in 1938. There are little-to-no rumors about him retiring soon.


Moderates
O'Connor --> Nominated by Reagan in 1981, she was born in 1930. There are consistent rumors about her retirement. It's pretty well-known that at a party on election night 2000, she muttered 'oh shit!' when Florida was initially announced for Al Gore.

Kennedy --> Nominated by Reagan in 1988, he was born in 1936. There are relatively few rumors about his retirement.


Conservatives
Rehnquist --> Nominated by Nixon in 1971, he was born in 1924. Rumors abound about his impending retirement.

Scalia --> Nominated by Reagan in 1986, he was born in 1936. Rabid Nazi. Sometimes rumors will crop-up about him retiring, and he often complains about the low pay, but sadly, he'll probably be there a while.

Thomas --> Nominated by Bush I in 1991, he was born in 1948. There are seldom rumors of his resignation.

----------------

If, as I suspect, any one of the current nine candidates are prone to nominating justices in the mold of the liberal USSC justices, than any one of those nine would be FAR SUPERIOR replacements to the Chimp currently in charge.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. where is the information about current candidates preferences?

are you going to post a link?

[blm]

4. Well, I found this if it gives you any comfort about Dean.

By VIVECA NOVAK


TIME Magazine, Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003



Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has rarely missed a chance — in debates and smaller forums, as well as on his website — to hammer the Bush administration's handling of civil liberties since the 2001 terrorist attacks. He's even taken other Democrats to task: "Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act," he said last June in a not-so-veiled jab at some of his opponents in the presidential race. "They believed that it was more important to show bipartisan support for President Bush during a moment of crisis than to stand up for the basic values of our constitution."


But on Sept. 12, 2001, Dean had quite a different reaction. He told the Vermont press corps he believed the terrorist hijackings would "require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street…I think that's a debate that we will have."


Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman, notes that Dean's comments came in the frenetic immediate aftermath of the attacks. "We shouldn't lose our focus on how the Bush administration has cynically used 9/11 to erode American civil liberties," Carson said. "Gov. Dean is and has been for his entire career a strong proponent of civil liberties for everyone." Dean's comments might be attributed to the emotion of the moment. But his views on certain constitutional and criminal justice principles have for years been at odds with those of many who form the base of the party — who are in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that Dean says he represents.


At the time of Dean's post-9/11 comments, Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor, called them "terribly irresponsible." In an interview this week, he gave a broader critique of Dean's approach to legal issues. "Whenever law is involved, he's been dreadful," Mello said. "He just doesn't get the Constitution or what lawyers do or what the courts are for." The exception, he added: Some "surprisingly good" Vermont Supreme Court appointments.

Dean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. "My view is that the justice system is not fair," Dean said in 1991 during his first week as governor. "It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole." Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." (Carson says the comment was meant as a joke, but Appel counters that even if it was, "the underlying message was pretty clear.")
>>>>>>

[tedoll78]

2. Oh..

I failed to make my question clear. (Silly me.. no sleep in 24 hours.)

I don't know..

I know Dean likes Clinton's two nominees. I was going to ask about the other candidates. :P

(sorry about that)

[blm]

3. Really? In 97 Dean said he wanted "common sense judges"

who didn't let "technicalities" get in the way of convicting defendants.

But, then, that's when he was just governing. I'm sure he's changed for the primary campaign.

Rutland Herald:


Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997

GOVERNOR’S COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS

By Diane Derby

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
The direction of the five-member court needed to be “changed dramatically”. Dean said. He was confident that his first appointment – naming Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy to be the new chief justice last march – was a major step in the right direction.

“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”

Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state. Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”.
>>>>>>
“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do.” Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it.”
>>>>>>