U.S. Justice Souter planning to retire
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 0 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 1 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 15 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 8 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
42 Comments
Login to comment
0
Molenir
No surprise he's retiring. I fully expect at least one other member of the court to step down next year as well. Really one of the few reasons why having McCain in as President would have been a good thing. Course if it was McCain in there, he wouldn't be retiring. Either way, glad to see him go, won't miss him when he's gone. Been nothing but a disappointment by those who appointed and supported him. Though of course those whose political philosophies he agreed with will doubtless applaud him.
0
Sarge
"after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court"
If presidents are forbidden to serve more than eight years, why are Supreme Court justices permitted to serve for decades?
"giving President Barack Obama his first chance to fill a vacancy on the high court"
This is foreboding indeed...
"Souter... the liberal-leaning justice... once telling acquaintances he had "the world's best job in the world's worst city"
Washington D.C., location of 24 Season 7, the world's worst city? This liberal needs to check out some other cities. There are a whole bunch of cities way worse than D.C.
0
yabits
The most significant folks who do applaud Souter's service are those who hold to an ideal of a US Supreme Court which transcends partisan politics. Any justice whose record shows as much independence of thought in his opinions as Souter has over the years -- which is doubtless the major factor in his selection by George H.W. Bush -- will be castigated by hard-line conservatives as a liberal.
Of course we all know that true independence of thought is one of the hallmarks of the classic liberal. Souter has demonstrated this, and so has Senator Arlen Specter.
0
IvanCoughalot
Not kidding, Sarge - imagine what could happen if the Supreme Court had favours to repay. Oh, like in 2000, for instance?
You know what they say, me bucko. What goes around...
0
zurcronium
After clarence 'show me the porno' thomas anyone with a IQ at room temperature would be a vast improvement. His legal opinions read like doctor suess. He is hopelessly partisian and has no respect for the constitution as the 2000 hijacking of the election clearly demonstrates.
Obama would never appoint such a hack. Only the republicans would do such.
0
WhiteHawk
yabits:
Independence? From what? All the independence in the world isn't worth much if it leads to bad decisions. Kelo, anyone? Heller? When was the last time Souter was on the correct side of the constitution?
And zurcronium? That was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
0
zurcronium
whitehawk,
right. you should be learning not laughing. the packing of the court with idiots by the republicans is what gave the US eight years for the bush junior failures. Maybe you are laughing about that too?
anyway, as usual, a snappy reply to the truth.
0
WhiteHawk
zurcronium, so you can show how Thomas has defied the constitution during his time in the Supreme Court? Okay, go ahead. Considering you still think the 2000 election was "hijacked", this should be entertaining.
From what I've seen of your posts over the years, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and anyone else who disagrees with your... colorful... world view is an 'idiot' with 'a[n] IQ at room temperature" (mixing your cliches?), even if you can never prove them wrong. The people you consider 'idiots' can explain their logic and decision-making process much better than you can. But hey, look at the bright side: A far-left president is in the White House, a far-left hack runs the house and another runs the senate. You could be appointed a judicial position!
As for the "only republicans would do such" comment, remember it is far-left Ginsburg who wants "world" court decisions to have more influence on American laws and U.S. Supreme Court decisions than America's own constitution. Hack? Why, yes she is.
0
Molenir
Making a statement like that shows more then anything else, that you have never actually bothered to read any of the opinions written by Justice Thomas. If you had, you would know the man has a great deal of respect for the constitution. More in fact then Justice Souter does. Try looking for yourself before just spouting nonsense like this.
Pot, meet kettle.
No, Bush has since come out and said unequivocally, that appointing Souter was one of the biggest mistakes and regrets of his Presidency. Sununu assured him that he was a conservative, constitutional Judge. In fact while on the bench in NH, he was. When he got to the Supreme Court however, he turned more liberal then any justice in years.
0
yabits
From small-minded, dogmatic idealogues such as anyone who would believe you have to make 21st-century decisions exclusively through the minds of people who lived centuries before. (You know, idealogues like Antonin Scalia.) Even when many of those authors knew full well that such a thing was untenable, and very few of them agreed with each other on most issues. So which founder do you want to believe? Madison? Jefferson?
It is arrogance -- and conservatives are certainly not in short supply of that quality -- to presume that someone can accurately reflect the mind of any one of the founders on modern issues. There has to be a more than a small measure of doubt, and when doubt creeps in, all bets are off. Strict constructionism, my a--.
Those founders, by the way, would have never dreamed of stopping a state from counting ballots in a close election.
0
WhiteHawk
yabits:
Such as someone who insists that precedent set in other countries should decide our laws?
And leftists are free of it? Have you seen Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Dodd or Frank lately? Why, next thing you know, someone will claim that leftists are incapable of being fascists!
It is also arrogance to suggest that America's constitution is null and void just because technology has advanced and people are creating new and exciting fields of crime.
They would have seen the problem of only counting parts of a state in order to help a single party. Any rational, logical person not committed to an ends-justify-the-means agenda would realize that the only fair and legitimate way to recount a state is to recount the whole state. Equal protection and treatment under the law, remember? There's something that's been missing lately, with "protected groups" and "hate crimes" laws. For another thread, perhaps...
Molenir:
Proof again that power corrupts. Not unlike the Republican-led congress that forgot its Contract with America and started spending and having scandals like Democrats.
0
buddha4brains
Yeah, like the Magna Carta.
And yet it was a Democrat who ended his presidency with a surplus (could have helped to pay down the debt) and a Republican who ended his with a huge deficit. Tell me, who was the last Republican president to table a balanced budget?
0
WhiteHawk
Sarge:
Indeed! Let's add senators and congressmen to that list as well! Arlen Specter just proved again that we need term limits in the legislature.
Souter started out conservative and went to the left during his S.C. tenure (as opposed to being genuinely "independent"), but his replacement will undoubtedly start from the far-left and, if anything, get worse.
Unfortunately, the topic during the confirmation hearings will be what it's always about: abortion. And while I don't like abortion (for medical reasons, not religious reasons), I also don't like the subject being used as a tool by both parties to hijack judicial nominations (and elections) and thereby preventing a more thorough vetting of a nominee's character and qualifications.
Goodbye Souter, enjoy your retirement at would should have been "The Lost Liberty Inn". I won't miss you, but I dread your replacement.
0
buddha4brains
While not let the voters in Penn decide on whether they agree with his move? Why set more laws and take more power away from the people. For all the b!tching about the SC, it makes little sense in establishing more laws which effectively robs the people their right to decide who represents them.
0
WhiteHawk
b4b, that's a better post than you left on the other Souter article. But one could use your argument against term limits for presidents too.
I'm surprised that anyone can vote Sen. Byrd back into office. It's not like he's George Burns.
As for the S.C. justices, they're not elected directly by The People, as presidents and legislators are. They're appointed for life, never have to run for re-election (much less run against oppostition), and there is no recall vote option. How democratic is that?
As Souter has proven, the power can go change you.
0
yabits
And who would that be? Certainly not Souter.
They may show arrogance in some ways. Dealing with conservatives can foster that. Most importantly, none of them shows the supreme arrogance of making the claim to be channeling the founding fathers.
No. It is arrogance (or egregious ignorance) to state that I suggested any such thing. The arrogance is the belief that the constitution contains answers to every problem facing us today and that only a select group of conservatives carries its proper interpretation.
0
yabits
LOL!!
Remember, this assessment is coming from Republican types who, when handed a briefing titled "Al Qaeda Ready to Attack America" promptly went to sleep.
Souter's record could be discerned by anyone who knows how to connect dots. The problem with a lot of Replicans is that they require everyone to drink their Kool-Aid.
0
Molenir
Oh, you mean you didn't read about a certain liberal SC justice discussing how laws in Spain should be applied here in the US? This is the big difference between people who are constitutionalist, and those who aren't. The one wants to use the constitution as a framework to make decisions, the other thinks that unelected justices should write the laws, rather then the elected representatives. And you say you don't support fascism.
0
yabits
No, and neither have you. Otherwise, you would have been able to be more specific.
Although Article 6 of the constitution does explicitly state that a treaty made with a foreign power shall be considered the law of the land. If a treaty with Spain implies adherence to a Spanish law, I would presume that a supreme court nominee would be aware of that article.
0
Molenir
Your right, I made a mistake. It wasn't Spanish law, it was the decisions of other courts that are being used. Amazingly enough, Souter signed off on both cases cited in the brief.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/13/topstories/bulletpoints/doc49e2d03384018737542843.txt
0
Molenir
Heh, I liked this article as well. Sorry, should have included it in my above post, but I didn't find it until after I had posted previously. Moderator, please feel free to combine my posts.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m4d13-Supreme-Court-Justices-Hypocrisy-on-International-Law
0
yabits
The basic problem conservatives have is their operational belief that the US was made for its constitution rather than the other way around.
If you believe that a constitution is made for a nation, then you don't have too much of a problem looking at how other courts resolve the real-life issues they are faced with, even if those courts happen to be foreign.
On the other hand, once certain people begin to regard a constitution as holy writ, like the Bible or Koran, then it's easy to understand why they would feel that looking to a foreign court is a form of heresy.
Since the US constitution doesn't even require a nominee for the Supreme Court to be an American citizen, one wonders what the big beef is for a justice to look at legal theory as expressed by others living in democratic societies. Those who believe in the natural law theory, on which the United States is based, should not have a problem with this.
0
WhiteHawk
So if the laws of other lands should hold precedent in America, then the reverse should be true, right? My carry permit should be good in Japan, following your logic. Or was your idea a one-way street where the U.S. is the submissive one?
0
JoeBigs
I have a name that would be great to replace Justice Souter.....Jimmy Carter
I for one would love to have the former President as a Justice, he is a fair man who loves the Constitution. It would be a great replacement.
I suspect that this will not be the only time that the President will be naming Justices to the Supreme court. Scalia, is not a young man and he
The Justices are;
John Paul Stevens, 89
Antonin Gregory Scalia, 73
Anthony McLeod Kennedy, 72
Clarence Thomas, 61
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76
Stephen Gerald Breyer, 71
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., 59
John Glover Roberts, Jr., 54
David Hackett Souter, 70
Under President Obama we may see 3 more Justices retire. If that happens I wonder how hard the far right will take it.
0
Sarge
Jimmy Carter?! The worst president ever would be a great replacement for Souter?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
0
JoeBigs
If I meant the worst President ever I would have said Bush.LOL Darn it Sarge you stepped right into that one!LOL
I think Carter would be a great addition and would join the liberal wing. That would keep it all fair and balanced.......LOL
0
yabits
There is a vast difference between the laws of other lands holding precedent and examining the logic of judicial actions in other democratic countries to learn what wisdom they contain. And, after careful study and reasoning, to cite a decision when it applies.
Many of my US compatriots appear to take the opinion that the US has a monopoly on wise decision-making and that there is nothing to be learned from others -- a position about as dumb as any I've run across. Or it could be that some Americans prefer to look at what other nations are doing and then incorporate those things all the while pretending that they originated in the USA.
0
WhiteHawk
JoeBigs, Carter is 85 years old. He's divise (several people quit his Carter Foundation following his recent Israel-bashing book), suffering from dementia (got attacked by a rabbit, etc.), is incapable of accountability (blames all of his poor decisions as president on the first convenient fall guy he can find) and has already done too much meddling in America's foreign policies (nukes for North Korea, etc.) as it is.
I'm laughing at you too. Good God, you were serious about Carter! Could you have picked a more unqualified nominee from the left?
0
WhiteHawk
divisive, not "divise".
0
goodDonkey
The Republican Party has become the party of HATERS. They have shown their hatred following the decisions of Powell, Specter, and Souter. Americans recognize the haters. That is why they are rejecting the conservatives; rejecting the Republican Party.
Souter was a good man. He was a man of impeccable character. But, since he did not make decisions the conservatives wanted they have chosen to assassinate his character. It leads me to believe that some conservatives feel that since a conservative appointed him, they felt they owned him. I am less concerned with those that have felt simply betrayed by him but there are plenty of vitriolic rants that go well beyond that.
0
yabits
Well, many of us do recognize the irrational fear and paranoia behind the hatred. Souter's sin was that he did not follow the hard-liners in their many weaknesses, and so he was able to make up his own mind -- which is always the biggest threat to many a modern-day conservative.
0
Molenir
The point you guys are missing here, is that conservatives, the so called "hard-line" people, are in favor of the constitution. Of the Legislature, be it run by Dems or Reps, being the ones to make the law. Not unelected judges. Thats the primary difference between conservative and liberal on the supreme court. Justices like Ginsberg, Souter etc, think they should be the ones, not only to decide if a law is constitutional, but that they should have the right to create a new law, one not passed by the legislature.
And its not about Hatred, you folks on the left have that down solid. Anyone who doesn't follow your party line is Hated. You call use haters, but you define the very term.
Regarding Carter. I have to admit, I laughed when I read that he was suggested as a possible replacement. First there is his age, but the fact that he was the worst President in US history, the most incompetent when it came to foreign policy, much less domestic policy. He gets credit for the Israel/Egypt peach treaty, but about the only thing he had to do with it, was to provide the forum for the meeting. Other then that, it was one disaster after another with him. From Iran, inflation, unemployment. You can hate Bush all you want, but compared to Carter, they just don't compare.
0
Molenir
Not the point at all. The point is, that laws in other countries, and the decisions of courts in other countries don't apply to the US. We have our own laws, our own constitution, and the laws, and precedents set elsewhere do not apply in any way to the laws and precedents in the US, or vice-versa. Nor should they.
0
yabits
This is an egregious fallacy. It is like saying that a company in a foreign nation that came up with a new invention or improved process for producing a quality product would not apply anywhere beyond its borders. Informed, intelligent people will recognize your objections as the "not-invented-here syndrome" and know how to deal with it.
At the bottom line, we are dealing with ideas -- something that transcends national boundaries. We understand why this frightens those who are easily frightened.
0
Molenir
Actually no. Totally different thing. Perhaps if you tried a different analogy it might make more sense, however this is really basic. Laws from other countries, decisions from other countries do not, and should not apply in the US. What a court decides in Spain shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to decisions made elsewhere. Let me try my own analogy. Going again with Spain, sorry.
Lets say that the Spanish President gives an order to do something. You are expecting the US military to answer to that order. To follow it. But thats not the chain of command, not how things work. Laws made in other countries shouldn't be applied in the US.
This is from an article I found on the subject. The first quote is from Scalia, the second, obviously from Thomas.
If lawmakers want to look at other lands and say, pass a law in line with their laws, then they are completely free to do so. I wouldn't have any problem with that idea at all. But having the court which is supposed to be using our laws, and our constitution basing their decisions on laws or decisions elsewhere, is quite frankly, scary.
0
yabits
LOL, Molenir....
You are obviously forgetting that when the US was born, it borrowed heavily from the legal philosophy and traditions of other nations, primarily Britain's.
That, above all, is really basic.
0
JoeBigs
Funny little fact most of the current Supreme court Judges were put there by Republican Presidents. Only Ginsburg and Breyer were not selected by a Republican.
I wonder who will a Liberal Democrat President pick..OoooOOOooo the courts may soon go heavily to the left!!!
With 60 in the Senate one can only wish that a few more of the Justices will retire....Scalia is really getting up there in years and I do not think he is driving with a full tank of gas anyways.....
I still wonder if that killer bunny was not a trained Soviet assassin. But the President did fight that little sucker off now didn't he?
I still think that President Carter is a fair and competent person. But his selection is nothing more than my way of tossing of names. All along trying to rouse interest in the process of selecting our next Justice.
It has been 15 years and now a Democrat has the opportunity to place new blood into the Supreme Court.
Then let me ask you folks who do you think the President will pick?
I think it will be a current Justice with a long record.
0
Molenir
No, totally am not. Much of Blacks law and other sources formed the basis of the constitution. However it is not those sources that the Justices use, but rather the Constitution itself which provides the framework. Stating that because the framers of the Constitution borrowed from other sources, doesn't mean that the SC Justices should borrow from other sources now.
0
WhiteHawk
yabits:
I've asked you this before on this thread, and like most of my questions, you ignored it and reverted to a new line of attack. So here it is again:
So if the laws of other lands should hold precedent in America, then the reverse should be true, right? My carry permit should be good in Japan, following your logic. Or was your idea a one-way street where the U.S. is the submissive one?
The idea of individual citizens providing for their own defense (since the S.C. decided they are not guaranteed protection by law enforcement) isn't original to those "long dead" Founding Fathers, but America is one of the countries left which allows it (for the most part). So according to your logic, the 2nd Amendment and my right-to-carry should apply to any country I visit.
Now before you come up with a more irrelevent comparison (such as inventions by private sector companies), could you explain how other countries' laws should apply to America, but ours shouldn't apply elsewhere?
0
yabits
It appears that Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court will be Sonia Sotomayor. A very good choice.
0
yabits
WhiteHawk asks: "So if the laws of other lands should hold precedent in America, then the reverse should be true, right? My carry permit should be good in Japan, following your logic. Or was your idea a one-way street where the U.S. is the submissive one? ... could you explain how other countries' laws should apply to America, but ours shouldn't apply elsewhere?"
The differences are elementary. For example, a domestic law which permits a US company to pollute should be able to be overridden by another country's law banning the pollution if that country is on the receiving end of a brunt of it. It goes back to the principle of one entity's freedom ending where another's begins.
This bears little relation to Ginsberg's quote about looking to other nations as a source of information and inspiration for how they handle legal issues -- something that raises the xenophobia of US conservatives.
Back to top