if only clarence thomas or scalia would retire. i hate both of those guys so much

Unfortunately I think we'll be stuck with Thomas for awhile.  He's only 60. 

was going to make a DONT WORRY GUYS IF THE CANCER GETS ME I'LL WING ONE OF THE EVIL ONES FIRST joke post, realized what an awful idea that was.

also i guess obama had his first 100 days. they weren't particularly bad or good! this is my opinion.

Cool that Souter was the one to go first cos I had understood that the most likely justices to retire were two liberal ones - I mean they don't have long to go, anyway - but this means Obama gets to appoint a good liberal judge just now and then supplement that with another one when the 89 year old finally decides to head to the ole folks home. I've got no confidence he'll do that, though!

I've got no confidence he'll do that, though!

what? why would obama appoint a conservative judge? you're dumb.

Hmmmmmm ...obama's a democrat....he's gonna appoint a pot-smokin gay vegan muslim athiest judge for sure.

Obama will most likely appoint a middle of the road shit head. I'm not talking in terms of democrat or republican here I mean a politician I actually agree with. As far as D and R go one is obviously a bit better than the other but the important people are mostly shitheads so I don't really have any reason to believe his choice of a new judge will do anything other than appeal to the middle of the road because he goes too crazy and it will backfire on him plus he doesn't actually want to be all that crazy, anyway. I don't think he's going to appoint anyone very conservative but with Obama's choices in appointments since he took office that is by no means an obvious thing to say.

no uh i dont think you know how the supreme court works. he's going to choose a fairly liberal activist judge because he wants as many decisions as he can on his end. your definition of middle of the road stand with actual leftist definitions but he has no reason to pick someone with even the slightest conservative bone in his body and he won't.

this is one of the few times presidents have the ability to really pick who they want politically, he's not going to squander it on a percieved sense of bipartisanship. no president ever has.

I know how the Supreme Court functions, I think, and yes my actual doubt is him picking a real left-head more than him picking a liberal - I'm not saying I think it's unlikely he'll pick a relatively liberal politician although I don't know I would have thought bipartisanship would have influenced him to go a couple shades less liberal than he might have otherwise.

What makes the appointment of a judge different than the appointment of a member of his cabinet different politically, though? I do not understand this distinction, and I want to.

the thing is you're not using the right frame work. a really conservative judge could keep roe v. wade on the books because its such an established precedent, or would fight for private property rights over government expansion.

like thats the issue here. obama will probably choose more activist judges, less constitutionalist but you can't really apply a left right framework as well to this.

i saw the list of hopefuls, didn't know any, but i'd bet their decisions would be more in line with what even like a hardcore marxist would think just because we won't see a STRICT POLITICAL DECISION come down like that. like no supreme court case will ever be DISMANTLE THE FED probably.

but ron paul, our go to libertarian, wants to analyze the fed. is that liberal or conservative to agree with on the supreme court? you see my confusion as to why you think he'd put a middle of the road guy; it's not really the context he would choose from!

lets also not forget that a lot of SC decisions will be based alarmingly outside of politics and unfortunately legal reasoning. in a recent case, an officer was acquitted for paralyzing a suspect because the defense literally submitted a tape of the incident and said DOESNT HE LOOK DANGEROUS?

it's often the scariest things that determine really important laws that we hoi polloi never hear about so basically don't worry too much about political leanings and instead crawl under your bed and realize that a Max X vid edit once convinced a bunch of a justices over scientific evidence that a cop could cripple you for speeding.

According to ny times btw I'm wrong. Obamas law record shows a lot of pragmatist/middle road law stuff. So fuck me!

nah his base would still go absolutely nuts if he picks someone who isn't pretty liberal. he is without a doubt picking someone who is unabashedly pro choice and pro gay rights

but as far as politics go he is pretty pragmatic and middle of the road himself so

nah his base would still go absolutely nuts if he picks someone who isn't pretty liberal. he is without a doubt picking someone who is unabashedly pro choice and pro gay rights

his base? what? do you think he cares? do you think his base cares?

jesus ryan. GEORGE W BUSH approval rating of like a two towards the end and you think people are going to revolt because obama appoints someone who is more of a fan of precedent than activism?

i mean he's not going to put another souter but it sounds like from his legal career he wasn't much in line with the idea of really activist judges.

i think he cares a lot, since his base is the grassroots activists who win elections for democratic candidates. he's up for reelection in 2012 and there are congressional elections in 2010 so you betcha he cares about his base

yeah people are going to remember a supreme court justice are you kidding me. have you even HEARD anyone outside of the internet mention this? SWINE FLU SWINE FLU justice quitting SWINE FLU.

no one will care! this is an important thing, one of the few really important things a president does, but trust me no one in his base gives even close to a fuck.

considering i just said his base was grassroots activists for the democratic party i'm pretty sure they keep up with politics! especially a SUPREME COURT nominee. ffs the republicans are already going nuts and making ads attacking his POTENTIAL choices to rally their own base.

it's 2009. you're talking about one guy (no democrat will be hurt by this as if this base is as well illuminated as you are claiming they know the president appoints these people, congress really doesn't do fuckall with it other than rubber stamp) being affected in an election in 2012 by a single supreme court justice who will not do anything horribly illiberal probably ever.

ryan do you know how politics works.

there's several governors races in 2009, theres a congressional election in 2010 (of which the GOP has already said it will use the congressional supreme court confirmation hearings to air ads with, ie if a republican votes to confirm his nominee they'll get hammered with this shit in the primaries) and the GOP is ALREADY airing ads attacking his POTENTIAL, NAMEDROPPED choices from anonymous sources and blogs. why don't you think this will be a big deal? harriett miers failed nomination was a huge deal during bushs term, as were his other two. they used ads attacking obama in the 08 race because he voted against all of bushes judges. if you dont think obamas choice will really effect him in an election then you don't understand how politics work! especially if he appoints someone who isn't strongly pro labor or pro choice (doubtful, but just saying), as they represent two of his biggest constituents

and if he appoints someone who is a lil bit too liberal, then no doubt we'll be getting tons of SOCIALIST, ACTIVIST JUDGES REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION ads airing during the 2010 elections