EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Justice Stevens Slows His Hiring At High Court

MARK SHERMAN   09/ 2/09 08:25 PM ET   AP

John Paul Stevens

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court's liberals will retire next year.

If Stevens does step down, he would give President Barack Obama his second high court opening in two years. Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court when Justice David Souter announced his retirement in May.

Souter's failure to hire clerks was the first signal that he was contemplating leaving the court.

Stevens, 89, joined the court in 1975 and is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, after Oliver Wendell Holmes. He is the seventh-longest-serving justice, with more than 33 years and eight months on the court.

In response to a question from The Associated Press, Stevens confirmed through a court spokeswoman Tuesday that he has hired only one clerk for the term that begins in October 2010. He is among several justices who typically have hired all four clerks for the following year by now. Information about this advance hiring is not released by the court but is regularly published by some legal blogs.

Stevens did not say whether he plans to hire his full allotment of clerks or whether he will leave the court at the conclusion of the term that begins next month. Retired justices are allowed to hire one clerk.

The White House had no comment.

Former law clerks said Stevens has for years hired all his clerks at once, usually in June or July of the year preceding their appointment. "I'd be surprised if he hired one but not four," said Columbia University law professor Jamal Greene, who worked for Stevens in 2006 and 2007.

But as to what that might mean, Greene said, "Frankly, your guess is as good as mine."

But one former clerk, University of Oklahoma law professor Joseph Thai, said he takes it as a sign that Stevens is likely to retire soon.

"It seems to indicate that he probably won't go beyond the current term," Thai said, cautioning that Stevens has said nothing to him about leaving.

Thai said Stevens could retire with his legacy secure and with little to gain from staying on a conservative-leaning court led by Chief Justice John Roberts.

"The other thing he could do by retiring sooner is achieve a sort of secondary legacy, by allowing President Obama to choose an ideologically compatible successor," Thai said.

When it comes to retirement, justices have their own "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Other than the occasional reporter, whose question typically is ignored, no one even bothers to ask justices when they will quit. That goes for their law clerks and even other justices.

So reading between the lines becomes more important. Souter often was the last justice to hire clerks, but when he hadn't even interviewed candidates by mid-April, the prospect that he might retire loomed ever larger.

Artemus Ward, who co-wrote a book on law clerks called "Sorcerers' Apprentices," said predicting retirements by looking at changes in when justices hire clerks often is futile. But Ward acknowledged that Souter's recent example has caused him to think about Stevens' possible departure in a new light.

Still, he said other factors might cause Stevens to stay on.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery this year for early-stage pancreatic cancer. While Ginsburg has been her usual energetic self, including frequent speaking engagements and a teaching stint in Europe this summer, long-term survival rates for pancreatic cancer are low.

Ginsburg, 76, has said she intends to serve into her early 80s, and she has hired her clerks for the court term that begins in October 2010.

Justices are reluctant to retire in bunches, mainly because they want the nine-member court as close to full strength as possible. If Ginsburg's health were to deteriorate, Stevens probably would stay, Ward said, because "protecting the institution takes precedence over personal departure decisions."

Stevens also is nearing two longevity records. When he joined the court, he replaced the longest-serving justice, William O. Douglas, and would need to serve until mid-July 2012 to top that service record. He would surpass Holmes as the oldest sitting justice if he were to remain on the court until Feb. 24, 2011.

Fordham Law School professor Abner Greene, a Stevens clerk in 1987 and 1988, said Stevens could step down next year having attained several milestones – his 90th birthday, 40 years as a judge and 35 on the Supreme Court.

But like other former employees, Greene said he has no idea what Stevens is planning.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court's liberals will retire next year. If Stevens does...
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court's liberals will retire next year. If Stevens does...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 807
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:24 PM on 09/02/2009
There should be at least 4 women on the court; preferably 5. That's would be in line with our population­.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
12:58 PM on 09/04/2009
Let me guess.
10:14 PM on 09/02/2009
Denny Crane.
10:03 PM on 09/02/2009
The only valid reason why the Justice should not continue is if he is mentally or physically unable to continue. Issues about longevity records should have no role to play in this decision. If he does in fact decide to retire, then Obama will have a chance to appoint another woman and a real liberal this time around. Maybe Hillary Clinton.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
12:45 AM on 09/04/2009
I'd rather we consider a mandatory retirement age for justices, say 90 years old, so that we do not have them holding on despite mental deteriorat­ion. No one wants to accuse a long-servi­ng justice of having lost his edge, but that is simply a fact of life. When they stay on just to make a new record, we all suffer.
11:07 AM on 09/04/2009
Hillary Clinton would be an excellent choice and yes, a real liberal is exactly what we need, but I'd prefer she stay free to run for President when Obama is done. We really need her in that top spot.
09:53 PM on 09/02/2009
And in Justice Steven's new job, he will hear...

"JOHN PAUL, OPEN HELL'S KITCHEN!"
photo
liberalbug
do you want fries with that?
09:49 PM on 09/02/2009
If I am alive at 89, I want to be on a beach somewhere, hopefully with a little bit of health, looking back at the last 30 years of my life and saying, man, that was one great retirement­. I am glad I didn't work until I die. Then I would watch the sun set and promptly turn myself in to one of Obama's death panels for my pink juice. (Just kidding with that last part).
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
12:46 AM on 09/04/2009
Spend your time on the beach now, bug, you will probably be more interested in reading Supreme Court opinions at 89 than looking at babes on the beach.
09:35 PM on 09/02/2009
kevenseven I'm a Fan of kevenseven 439 fans permalink

blueskybig­star writes:

There have been many SCOTUS who never even had a law degree. Jon Stewart would do better than Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia. He would take them down.

Posted 01:35 PM on 09/02/2009

I defy you to name two.

Can we be serious for just one minute?

My response:S­tanley Forman Reed was the last to not have a law degree. 1938-1947

James F. Byrnes 1941-1942

and one more for good measure, but there are a lot of them
Robert H. Jackson

http://wik­i.answers.­com/Q/Whic­h_Supreme_­Court_just­ices_did_n­ot_have_a_­law_degree
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
12:47 AM on 09/04/2009
Not again in your lifetime. Job is too hard to do without training.
12:30 PM on 09/06/2009
I think that that is a shame. We need people who know how the real people live, people with common sense on the court. I follow the Supreme Court a lot. There is nothing that is that difficult to understand­. Period.
08:14 PM on 09/02/2009
I would have appointed Alex Dershowitz­, bonafide liberal and brilliant legal scholar
08:15 PM on 09/02/2009
Sorry, I meant Alan Dershowitz
yukoner1
Living way up the left coast.
10:52 PM on 09/02/2009
Out of 304 million people there are probably a few million better choices than that.
09:12 PM on 09/02/2009
AIPAC would be very happy.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
TAC
09:19 PM on 09/02/2009
So would OJ..
09:42 AM on 09/03/2009
When did our Supreme Court start to decide questions of foreign policy? LOL
photo
FreedomBeforeSecurity
Primary: The only time we truly control our future
07:24 PM on 09/02/2009
What really terrifies me is if Stevens retires, and Obama decides to put in place another centrist. If he does that it'll permanentl­y move the court to the right, and place long held precedents in jeopardy.
Ie. Roe v Wade

It will also likely tip the balance in favor of expanding executive authority.
Effectivel­y making the president a dictator of policy.

Imagine if another Bush (or God forbid Cheney) got that sort of power?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
12:48 AM on 09/04/2009
So, you want to wait and see if Palin appoints a more liberal justice?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Dennis
No matter how cynical I get I can't keep up.
07:10 PM on 09/02/2009
The GOP will demand that Obama show bipartisan good faith by allowing John McCain to appoint Stevens' replacemen­t. Obama will take it under advisement­. Rahm Emmanuel will state that it's being considered­. Harry Reid will think that it's a darned good idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PostModernPatriot
12:04 AM on 09/04/2009
Sad, but it rings true.
07:02 PM on 09/02/2009
I hope Obama nominates a BLACK WOMAN LESBIAN. That would make the ditto-head­s have a collective heart attack.
08:00 PM on 09/02/2009
She'll need to show her birth certificat­e
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:07 PM on 09/03/2009
ROFL
photo
liberalbug
do you want fries with that?
09:57 PM on 09/02/2009
It would be even better if she were a black lesbian woman, half-musli­m, one parent from some far off country, descended from a jew and an irishman with a drinking problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Garies
02:37 AM on 09/03/2009
Yeah, it would indeed be interestin­g to have a female Muslim on the Supreme Court... especially a lesbian Muslim. Imagine the conservati­ve Christian, anti-LGBT justices like Scalia having to interact with her. I think it would also be quite revealing to see the GOP's response to her religion and sexual orientatio­n. Plus it would have the side effect of being good PR in the Middle East... or maybe not if she's a lesbian. Throw black into the mix and you've added even more much-neede­d diversity to this court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackYowe
I am a classical- liberal woman and a Jeweler.
06:42 PM on 09/02/2009
Interestin­g. I bet he is glad Obama is in office, he probably couldn't hang on though another Republican term, LOL!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:48 PM on 09/02/2009
I deeply respect Justice Stevens. But he and Justice Ginsburg should both step down while Obama has 60 Democrats to confirm progressiv­e Justices whether the Republican­s like it or not, Both have earned the right to retire with honor and respect and enjoy what I hope would be a healthy half a century of retirement and contributi­on.
06:39 PM on 09/02/2009
There's very little evidence that Obama actually wants progressiv­es in government and more than enough against it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janpradder
08:07 PM on 09/02/2009
I agree, both Stevens and Ginsberg should in all good concience step down. I can't believe Ginsberg would said she would stay till her mid-80's. How selfish can you be?
photo
ReichWingKaput
a working class hero is something to be
05:36 PM on 09/02/2009
Put Al Gore on the Supreme Court.
A nice bit of justice for the crowd that denied him the presidency­.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
somefool
On the road towards neo-feudalism
06:08 PM on 09/02/2009
That would be sweet, though I'm not sure he'd want it .
06:41 PM on 09/02/2009
Now there is an idea whose time has come!
Vice President Gore has more going for him than simply his loss to George W. Bush. He served his country well in the senate and as Vice President. He brings intelligen­ce and grace to any office he holds and has a great respect for law and the Constituti­on. His decision not to further the election protests was an act of great patriotism­.
I doubt that it will happen, which is this nation's loss.
05:30 PM on 09/02/2009
This is so sad. I hope he stays on., We need someone to move the court from it's conservati­ve bent Obama seems to want to keep moving the court right.
photo
joekerr
Your micro bio is empty
05:29 PM on 09/02/2009
Well it's about time! I would say that he has been far too old and outdated to be passing opinions on some of the things that face us in modrn society. But..but..­.but you say old people aren't stupid or incapable, which would be the wrong reason why I think he should retire. My 70 something mother, who is sharp as a whip, smart, capable and very independen­t also shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Why? Well for one, she still doesn't "get" email, let alone text messaging, which to almost everyone on here is a skill we all take for granted. So if you don't understand email, how can you possibly pass laws governing it? She also doesn't "get" cable television (media monolopies­), or why the cassette went away (standardi­zation) or how you can now download any movie or song you want (intellect­ual property). Nor does she even begin to comprehend how this whole tech thing is now part and parcel of our lives. Simply put, we are in the middle of what history will probably consider to be even greater than the industrial revolution in terms of world changing outcomes. And yet we consistent­ly think the somehow age belies actual experience­. We still have people in the highest halls of government who think that this whole informatio­n superhighw­ay thing is a fad. We have a government that still uses monochrome screens and dot matrix printers. Not because it can't upgrade, but because it doesn't want to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PostModernPatriot
12:08 AM on 09/04/2009
My mother died at 70 four years ago and she understood all those things you mentioned. You are stereotypi­ng.
photo
joekerr
Your micro bio is empty
08:26 PM on 09/14/2009
I'd agree with you if the proof wasn't inthe pudding. I watched a senator describe the internet as a series of tubes. I've seen congress struggle mightily against created a national patient database. Norad is still using tech from 1980. My parents still have VHS tapes. The digital cable transition is going poorly because people don't understand how a digital transmissi­on works, let alone a satellite transmissi­on. I see ads on the daily for easy to use cell phones for the elderly. If this facts didn't exist then I would agree with you. But I think this less a case of ageism than it is one of pragmatism­. Don't get the two confused. The industrial revolution left a lot of smart capable people in the dust and so too will the net revolution­. This isn't about age, this is about knowledge. And I'm saying that a Supreme Court Justice better damn well be better informed than me.
11:14 AM on 09/04/2009
My 83 year old parents are more computer literate than many 20 year olds. Age has nothing to do with it. Ageism is a big problem in our society. Don't perpetuate the unfair stereotype­s.