Photo credit: NYT
Tom Goldstein | Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 1:24 pm
As we turn the corner to the second half of the Supreme Court’s Term, the inevitable conjecture begins about retirements. But this year seems extra-special: over the past few weeks, media reports and blog posts have raised the supposedly serious prospect of not one but two Justices leaving. Each piece is vague and hedged as “speculation,” and is presented as news on the thin reed that the White House is supposedly preparing for the prospect of dual confirmation hearings this summer. All of the stories are wrong.
John Paul Stevens very likely will retire. Ruth Bader Ginsburg definitely will not.
Justice Stevens keeps his own counsel, but the signals he has sent are unchanged and grow more significant as they accumulate and as time passes. The White House has long known – since before Justice Sotomayor was confirmed – that there was a significant chance Justice Stevens would retire this year. Some of the signals are inaction – he has made no move to hire additional clerks, which he logically would have done if he had decided to remain on the Court. Other, more subtle things the Justice has said and done privately also support the conclusion that his working plan is to retire. Obviously, nothing is final until it is announced, but for the first time, I now believe that he is going to retire.
For almost everyone, Justice Stevens’s retirement will be a deeply sad event. He is a great man – a historic figure. Like Justice Souter, Justice Stevens has always been the consummate gentleman, while at the same time incisive and brilliant. Justice Stevens’s stamp on our jurisprudence, however, is much deeper.
The fact that the nation’s attention will shift so quickly to speculation about his successor, rather than an appreciation of him, is unfortunate.http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/Edited to add emphasis to the last line.