We will not be "retaining a liberal Suprme Court seat".

[Stinky The Clown]

Justice John Paul Stevens, to this day, self describes as a conservative Republican. Yes, some of this votes have been cheered long and loud by our side. But he is not one of us. He is simply a reasonable jurist who chooses to vote for what is proper, not what is political.

What we WANT is a LIBERAL in that seat.

[lonestarnot]

1. Yes we do!

[Richardo]

2. I want a "a reasonable jurist who chooses to vote for what is proper, not what is political"

Sounds like the ideal Supreme Court justice to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That might have been okay back in the day when the Supreme Court wasn't a rigged game.

The right side of the court are all ideologues. That can't be countered with a non-hard-left jurist.

Sometimes ya gotta do what's necessary, not what is ideal. After that corporate "free speech" shit, this may well be the court's last gasp. Its now or never.

[notadmblnd]

10. You know, it is possible to increase the size of the court?

The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress. Just saying it's something the admin could think about.

[Richardo]

12. Ask FDR

I think the answer came back as a "no"

[notadmblnd]

13. Roosevelt didn't succeed, but six others did.

[Richardo]

14. The other six changes were not purely presidential initiatives

Several had to do with the increasing geography of the US, and Justice Chase actually asked to reduce the size of the court from 10 to 7.

To answer your original question, it's the purview of the Congress to establish the number of seats on the court, and I think we all know how THAT would go.

[notadmblnd]

26. Yes, it has to be an act of congress of which we currently have a Dem majority

[Goblinmonger]

24. FDR did succeed, actually.

His social programs were being blocked by the SCOTUS. He said he was going to increase the SCOTUS by a ridiculous amount so he could get his programs passed. The SCOTUS knew that would be bad and Roberts and Hughes caved and passed FDRs plans so FDR didn't go forward with his scheme. He never really wanted to increase the size, he just wanted to make them blink. And they did.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Yeah, but don't expect anything like that from the current Congress

At least not until we can get all the "Democrats" to actually vote like DEMOCRATS.

[Posteritatis]

20. Opening that can of worms in this political climate would be a bad idea. (nt)

[notadmblnd]

27. why? the republicans have stopped pretending, why shouldn't Dems?

[Posteritatis]

28. I don't care for the idea of enlarging the SC every time Congress switches parties. (nt)

[cali]

30. it's not functionally possible. Not with this Congress.

[Richardo]

11. I don't get it. A vote against the RW ideologues a vote against the RW ideologues

It doesn't matter if that vote comes from a LW ideologue or our proverbial "reasonable jurist".

[gkhouston]

6. +1. It's very telling that "a reasonable jurist who chooses to vote for what is

proper, not what is political" is now branded (and in some circles condemned) as the most liberal justice on the Court.

[Posteritatis]

19. The condemnation is the telling part there. (nt)

[etherealtruth]

3. All I ask for is a jurist ...

that is reasonable, choosing to vote for what is proper not what is political.

That is what really matters to me.

We have several members of the current court that can't distinguish "right" from "wrong."

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. yep

[blondeatlast]

7. I want another Justice Stevens in that seat. One who rules form jutice, not

an agenda.

Look at his record and those of other excellent SCOTUS judges--justice IS liberal, and those who rule from law and justice must always rule for outr side.

[Robb]

8. "Justice IS liberal." Spot on.

I agree, I'd like another good judge -- not a reactionary parrot from EITHER camp. :toast:

[Richard Steele]

17. It's well known that FACTS have a liberal bias. nm

[grasswire]

9. Stevens is a demonstration of the shift in political labeling

In his early years he was considered a conservative Republican. Now he's considered a liberal. He hasn't changed. Just the labeling has changed, because the whole spectrum has shifted to the right. Very sad indeed.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Eggzactly!

There have been other threads here recently discussing how "liberal" Richard Nixon was. It's not that he or Stevens were at all Liberal for the times, but rather that the Republican party, and even the DLC/BlueBalledCoward wing of the "Democratic" party have gone ridiculously far to the right, while Stevens has remained the same as he was 35 years ago.

Hell, even Sainted Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass that "purity" standard that the teabaggers are insisting on for Repukes. Barry Goldwater, if he could see what the GOP turned into, would be renouncing his statement that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

But we need some real balance on the Supreme Court, and the only way to get that is to appoint justices who are as far to the left as Opie, Sammy, Fat Tony, and Clarence are to the right.

[cali]

31. um. no. actually, he's changed a lot.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Regarless of who appointed him

and how he describes himself, he is clearly on the progressive wing of the Court, and has been from pretty much the get-go.

The political climate is much different now from when Justice Sotomayor was nominated, and I don't think it will be easy sledding for the next nominee, no matter what their political track record is. If I recall, it's considered bad manners or something like that to make an appointment before the current term of the Court is up in July, and that leaves us only a few months until the election. There is also the large summer recess, and the "district work period" that is a thin disguise for time off to campaign before the general election, as well.

I strongly suspect the Rethugs will use every delaying tactic under the sun to shove a confirmation vote off until after Election Day. Any steps to thwart that will be described in the same "jam through" language that the Repukes used to describe the passage of HCR. It will keep that issue fresh for the fall.

I predict that someone with very moderate credentials will be the nominee, and quite possibly even from a minority group that has not yet been represented on the Court, such as an Asian-American, or perhaps an African-American woman. I see a string of white women on various media short lists, and it's just not that historic anymore.

[Posteritatis]

16. I want a reasonable jurist who chooses to vote for what is popular, not what is political

Their political orientation outside of the courtroom doesn't matter to me; I'd be happy with nine self-described conservative Republicans if they actually behaved like that on the bench (not that that's terribly likely).

When the Supreme Court is at the point where you can generally predict rulings in advance on ideological grounds, there's something wrong.

[Cleita]

21. I would settle for the reasonable jurist who chooses to vote

as a judge and sets politics aside. That was the intent when the court system was set up.

[defendandprotect]

22. Stevens is a conservative Republicans emblematic of how far to the right politics have

been moved by the right -- and with the help, too often, of the Democratic leadership!

Let's stop compromising with Republicans and put a liberal/progressive in that seat --

at least the equivalent of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito--!!!

Which will be quite far to the left!!

[cali]

32. Stevens has become far more liberal over the years.

[donco6]

25. I want him as liberal as a human body can contain.

I want him (or her) to be so far left, they have to widen the traditional picture just to get him in the frame.

I want him so progressive, Liberty U. attorneys quake in fear at his name.



I could go on . . .

[cali]

29. he can call himself a cockeyed robin but his later voting record on the Court

is a liberal one.

[Greyhound]

33. Freakish how anything not completely batshit crazy is considered "liberal",

including here. But somehow I'm sure that we'll have some "reality based" reason why his replacement can only be another corporate stooge (or maybe just a corporation:shrug:).