iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

John Paul Stevens RETIRING: Supreme Court Justice To Step Down This Summer

MARK SHERMAN   04/ 9/10 11:59 PM ET   AP

Supreme Court Stevens

WASHINGTON — The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court's leading liberal, touched off an immediate election-year political battle Friday over President Barack Obama's second high court pick. Republicans promised trouble for any activist nominee.

Obama said he would quickly name a successor in the mold of Stevens, who he said was a voice for ordinary people rather than powerful interests.

Eleven days before his 90th birthday, Stevens said he would step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in hopes that a replacement could be confirmed well before the next term begins in October.

"We cannot replace Justice Stevens' experience or wisdom," Obama said at the White House after returning from Prague where he had signed a nuclear treaty. "I'll seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

A White House official said about 10 people are under consideration, but speculation has focused on fewer than that. Leading candidates are said to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, in Washington and Diane Wood, 59, in Chicago. All three were considered last year as well, and Obama interviewed Kagan and Wood before choosing Sonia Sotomayor for the high court.

Of those, Wood would be most likely to excite Obama's liberal base and stir up conservative opposition. Garland is seen as most acceptable to Republicans, with Kagan somewhere in between.

Stevens is the court's last remaining World War II veteran and the second oldest justice in the court's history. His retirement had been hinted at for months, and the White House had made clear it would be ready to nominate a replacement without delay.

A leading Democrat said the Senate, where Democrats control 59 seats, would follow the same pattern as last year, when Sotomayor was confirmed as the 111th justice in early August. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appealed for civility. "I hope that senators on both sides of the aisle will make this process a thoughtful and civil discourse," he said.

Looking toward those hearings, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an evenhanded reading of the law."

Republicans have not ruled out efforts to delay confirmation, and GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said Obama would face a "whale of a fight" if he nominated an activist judge.

At the very least, the high court nomination could rev up both Democratic and Republican fundraising machines for the November election, even though Stevens' replacement by a liberal-leaning justice would not alter the court's ideological balance. Ideologues of both sides were ready for a conflict.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "President Obama is likely to name a nominee who will embrace an extremely liberal judicial philosophy."

Michael Keegan, president of the liberal People for the American Way said, "In recent years, the court has given extraordinary preference to powerful interests at the expense of ordinary Americans. Justice Stevens was a bulwark against that trend. Our country's next Justice must play a similar role."

How much of a fight Republicans put up probably will turn on whom Obama chooses.

"If it's Diane Wood, I think you'll see a very strong pitched battle," said Michael Carvin, a partner with the Jones Day law firm who served in the Reagan administration Justice Department and is active in Republican politics.

Beyond the political back-and-forth, a new justice is unlikely to exert the same influence for which Stevens has been known over the past 15 years. He has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to attract the support of the court's swing votes, now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy, to preserve abortion rights, to limit application of the death penalty and to restrain Bush administration policies on the detention of suspected terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

However, after the arrival of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's appointees, Stevens more often was among the four liberal justices in dissent. He was on the losing end of a major case involving campaign finance laws in January.

That dissent showed both the eloquence of Stevens' writing and, in his stumbling reading of his opinion in the courtroom, signs that his age might at long last be affecting him, though he remains an active tennis player and swimmer.

Roberts said in a written statement Friday that Stevens "has enriched the lives of everyone at the court through his intellect, independence, and warm grace."

After Justice Stephen Breyer joined the court in 1994, 11 years passed without a change in membership until O'Connor announced her retirement and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in 2005. By October, assuming Obama's nominee is confirmed, there will have been four new justices in five years.

___

Associated Press writers Jesse J. Holland and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,440
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (81 total)
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
02:50 PM on 04/10/2010
My criteria: It is important that the next SC Justice decide on the side of the people and not the corporations or a particular party. So, I'd have them answer these two questions.

1) How would you have voted on Bush v Gore? Correct Answer: throw the case out and send it back to Florida. Ensure that all parties follow the law. Don't pick the president based on who is in the majority at the time on the Supreme Court.

2) How would you have voted on Citizen's United? Correct Answer: vote in a way that distinguishes the rights of people from those of corporations, lending favoritism to actual human beings. Rule that since a corporations cannot go to war and get maimed or killed, and cannot go to prison when it commits a crime, that the electoral system is too precious to be trusted to corporations. People elect representatives, and the Constitution intends for the people's representatives to be representatives of the people (not representatives of the corporations). Therefore, Corporations may have a right to free speech, but that right is less than the least of people's rights to free speech. A common beggar should have a greater right to free speech, and a louder voice, than the greatest of corporations.

I think that anyone who can agree with those two statements is qualified to be on the SC.
01:39 PM on 04/14/2010
Tell this to the people who elected Scott Brown, and any other Republican Senator. The GOP will filibuster anything remotely resembling an adequate replacement for Judge Stevens. Without a voter mandate from unlikely places, government by the people and for the people isn't going to happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:15 PM on 04/10/2010
I want Hillary Clinton on the Sup Ct. The Republicans spent over $ 35,000,000 to investigate her during the Whitewater political game and came up empty other than finding that she is a fine legal mind and patriot She has had the experiences of a practicing attorney, shouldering the White House burden, serving with distinction in the U.S. Senate and currently as the Secretary of State. How could the Republicans find fault with her nomination ? Don't the regular citizens of this country deserve something better than a political hack like Clarence Thomas sitting mute as the "feather on the scale" ? This is the time and we should seize it.
12:07 PM on 04/10/2010
I can't stand the politics of these things. Why should anyone advocate moving the court to the right or left? Isn't it their job to keep a check on the President and Congress as well as the states? So the only thing we should be concerned with is whether or not the person selected is willing to actually stand by the constitution and to stop letting the president and congress walk all over it. Same thing goes for state rights, it's time for the court to stop helping the feds to take away the rights of the state to make and enforce their own laws. Medical MJ is a good case in point.
12:05 PM on 04/10/2010
Translation of Ms. McConnell's statement: "The PON (Party of No) will do everything in its power to stonewall the confirmation process. We don't want activist justices unless they are in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas. We will hold our breath and throw hissy fits like the immature 6 year olds we are."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:49 AM on 04/10/2010
Sotomayor has turned out to be a thoughtful inquisitive justice. There are too many crusty bitter old men on the court and they need to be replaced. We need more Sotomayor.
For political reasons, he needs to pick another Latino so the Re-thuugs can bash her over the media and we can brodcast in the Spanish Media what the GOP really thinks about them.
Right before the 2010 Midterms. Fight fire with fire fight politics with dirty politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trucap
08:03 AM on 04/10/2010
one more phony theatrical fight in the senate bla bla bla i can't wait to see it .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bacygirl
02:53 AM on 04/10/2010
Judge Stevens is labeled liberal. He’s long past such a characterization. More accurately, he is Wise. Wisdom is the ultimate attainment in life. The Supreme Court should be composed of Nine Wise champions of Justice. Wisdom has no vested interest in mitigating Truth. The wise embrace right rather than the need to be right; love truth and see through devious logic. The ways of the wise are informed by spiritual discernment.

Younger, self-important members of the court weren't persuaded by Stevens' impeccable reasoning and insightfulness opined as recently as the Citizens United decision. The five representing the Party of Greed may live to rue thumbing their noses at his superior understanding of the spirit of real democracy and the threat corporations present to it.

In the Bible, literature and lore, the wise are sought. Today the wise are few; their input denigrated. Education masquerades as wisdom. Experts/pundits fill the airwaves with their skewed facts and self-serving opinions drowning out voices of reason. Hysteria grows in America. Ignorant masses fueled by raw emotions, base morals, and dangerous causes are encouraged by people with evil motives.

When the need for judicial wisdom is greatest, the Supreme Court becomes a wisdom-free zone.
11:35 PM on 04/09/2010
Obama said something like " ...I will endeavor to replace Justice Stevens with someone similar : Someone who will not allow powerful interests to overpower the voice of the average citizen". I hope that is true but he has been courting conservative votes by opening up oil drilling off the coasts among others things in order to fetch support for his cap and trade and energy bills from the right. Pundits claim he's edging to the right to win reelection votes. This could not have come at a worse time. As Justice Stevens himself admits : It is not likely that anyone like himself would be appointed to the Supreme Court in the current political climate. Progressives and the left didn't get much help from the Sotomayor appointment unless you want to count that she's a woman. Obama didn't worry when he promised his base Universal Health Care and gave them some kind of insurance reform instead. We need someone who would overturn designating corporations as individuals and giving them unlimited abuse of poliitical funding power. How likely is that to happen ? The news shows 5 likely candidates all of whom are conservative : Just some more conservative than others. Only one male : Stacking the court with women it's likely that soon it will be illegal to be male. Seems what is really needed is a far left leaning SCJ to balance out the heavy conservativism on the court !
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
flossophy
the unfamous anti-establishment classical liberal
11:18 PM on 04/09/2010
Gerald Ford nominated the most Liberal SCOTUS justice.

Obama should nominate a conservative to the bench.

It's only fair.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Dustee
The Par. T N da BUBBLE.
12:45 AM on 04/10/2010
Back then when Gerald Ford nominated him he was a Republican. Today he says the Republican party left him, he didn't leave the Republican party.

What happened to your party?
11:55 AM on 04/10/2010
What happened to Bart Stupak? Tea Party knocked him down a notch or what?
08:59 PM on 04/09/2010
When I heard that Associate Justice Stevens was stepping down at the end of the current Session the SCOTUS I theought of three people. The First is Jonathan Turley, Of George Washington University is Washington D.C.. The other two name are Roberty F. Kennedy Jr and Mike Papentonio, both have a history of environmental activism and a taste for liberal politics. I called the Washington D.C. offices of my two Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez to support Mr Turley as the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
10:52 PM on 04/09/2010
lol Pap? That guy is hardly qualified to sit on the highest court of the land. I mean, I think Mike is a nice guy, but Justice he is not. Neither is Robert K.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalOrgonian
08:06 PM on 04/09/2010
Very sad to hear Justice Stevens is retiring.

I HOPE Obama considers Julian Bond.
We need someone who believes in Civil rights.
And I believe Julian Bond has what we need at this time.
06:41 PM on 04/09/2010
So sad to be losing him. But the silver lining: at least a Democrat is in the White House. Don't you know it will be a real battle getting someone confirmed? What size of majority vote is required?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JudgeMoonbox
09:22 PM on 04/09/2010
"All he needs is a simple majority in the Senate:"

You're right, that's all he NEEDS. Unfortunately, the Conventionally Wise have foisted on us a perception that everything is going to be filibustered, so it's a matter of getting 60 votes in he Senate. And don't expect the Gang of 14 to remind Republicans of the deal they struck 5 years ago. If they thought that filibustering judicial nominees was unwarranted obstructionism, why would they be so silent over Obama's Stimulus and Health Care Reform bills? It should be obvious that it's easier to repeal a bad law than to impeach a bad judge.

The only thing that will prevent a filibuster is if Obama reminds the Republicans that they officially believe the media's biased against them, therefore they shouldn't give this media any ammunition. Obama has seemed to be too much into Postpartisan Feelgoodism to do that.
02:55 PM on 04/11/2010
Thanks!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USAFree1
10:14 PM on 04/09/2010
A Democrat in the White House doesn't mean much if the court moves any further right.
02:54 PM on 04/11/2010
Yeah, but Obama's nominees won't be to the right. That was my point
06:37 PM on 04/09/2010
Of the leading candidates now, I'd go for Pamela Karlan

- Near perfect score on the SAT in 11th grade

- Assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

- Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford

- Frequent commenter on PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

- Co-authored "When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the Presidential Election of 2000"

Bonus:
- openly gay
- female
- progressive
10:08 PM on 04/09/2010
Wow

Such high standards.
Your number one reason is her 11th grade SAT scores.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:13 PM on 04/09/2010
I think the number-one standard for any SCOTUS nominee here in 2010 should be lack of corporate sponsorship.
03:00 PM on 04/11/2010
Absolutely. I could not agree more! Corporations supporting ANY judge (or justice) is completely selling out our justice system. If you have any interest in joining the new Facebook page for the "Fix Congress First" movement, here's the link.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=113496672010576&ref=mf
06:13 PM on 04/09/2010
The Court is a real joke anymore with that Roberts clown as Chief. I mean do any of them interpret the constitution? Looks to me like they bend the constitution to suit their needs. Results oriented I think they call it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
06:12 PM on 04/09/2010
Stevens may have stepped up his schedule for retirement in the knowledge that the Democrat party and liberal Rebubs will take a beating this November in the mid-term elections.