Obama Hopes To Replace Souter By October

President Says He Will Consult Both Parties, Wants New Justice To Share His "Constitutional Values"

(CBS/ AP)  President Barack Obama said Friday he will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter with someone who shares the president's respect for "constitutional values" and hopes to have "him or her" seated on the highest U.S. court by the start of its next term in October.

The departure of Souter, part of the court's liberal wing, is unlikely to change the ideological balance of a court that became more conservative during George W. Bush's presidency. Mr. Obama's first pick is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee.

In a dramatic flourish, Mr. Obama interrupted spokesman Robert Gibbs' daily press briefing to announce that he had just talked to Souter. The news of Souter's planned retirement had broken by then, but the White House had said nothing until the president came in.

Mr. Obama thanked Souter for his dedicated service, and quickly looked ahead to the nomination of a replacement.

"As I make this decision," Mr. Obama said, "I intend to consult with members of both parties, across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October."

Souter informed Mr. Obama of his plans in a brief letter Friday. Mr. Obama praised Souter, who is leaving after nearly two decades in Washington. His retirement gives Obama his first pick for the Supreme Court three months into office.

"It's not a terrible shock that Souter would be leaving. He has perennially be one of the names listed when folks think about potential retirements," said CBS News legal affairs analyst Andrew Cohen.

The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court's only female justice.

At 69, Souter is much younger than either Ginsburg, 76, or Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the other two liberal justices whose names have been mentioned as possible retirees. Yet those justices have given no indication they intend to retire soon and Ginsburg said she plans to serve into her 80s, despite her recent surgery for pancreatic cancer.

In Philadelphia, Sen. Arlen Specter said he would like to see more ethnic and gender diversity on the high court. "I think that, given the proportion of women in our society, that one out of nine is underrepresented," said Specter, a recent convert to the Democratic Party. "The court could use some diversity along a number of lines," he added, mentioning African-Americans and Hispanics.

Immediately, speculation has swirled over his possible replacements. Interest groups immediately began gearing up.

"Obama's own record and rhetoric make clear that he will seek left-wing judicial activists who will indulge their passions, not justices who will make their rulings with dispassion," said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said, "We're looking for President Obama to choose an eminently qualified candidate who is committed to the core constitutional values, who is committed to justice for all and not just a few,"

Some of the names that have been circulating include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago.

Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge in New York, would also be the first Hispanic on the Court as would as would Wardlaw, a California-based appeals judge, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.

Obama has hinted he'd like to see folks with real life experience - political experience - on the bench, a different kind of diversity. This used to be commonplace: William Howard Taft was an ex-president; Earl Warren was a governor; Hugo Black was a senator; and Arthur Goldberg was a Cabinet member, reports Greenfield

If that's where Obama is going, maybe he will select Deval Patrick or Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan, and a former attorney general of her state, Greenfield said.

"Six weeks ago, when asked about a potential Supreme Court nomination, a senior Administration official told reporters that the White House is looking for people with experience in law and in life, people with character and commitments to a community, people who can make hard decisions but still have empathy for the litigants before them," Cohen said.

The Obama White House began from almost its first days in office preparing for the possibility of a retirement by thinking about and vetting potential high court nominees. Those efforts only accelerated with Ginsburg's cancer surgery.

The timing may have been unexpected, but Souter has long yearned for a life outside Washington.

He has never made any secret of his dislike for the capital, once telling acquaintances he had "the world's best job in the world's worst city." When the court finishes its work for the summer, he quickly departs for his beloved state of New Hampshire.

When the first President Bush appointed him, Souter was sold as a law-and-order kind of conservative. It wasn't to be, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews.

"Justice Souter ended up being a big disappointment to the conservatives," said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network. "He became very enamored with sort of elitist liberal outcomes."

Souter in fact outraged conservatives - and made legal history - with his decisive vote to solidify abortion rights and uphold Roe vs Wade in 1992, Andrews reports. Souter then grew consistently liberal - allowing affirmative action in college admissions, allowing the Guantanamo detainees access to federal courts and voting against the right of D.C. residents to own handguns.

"We constantly reexamine what the Constitution requires," Souter once said.

Souter is the court's 105th justice, only its sixth bachelor. He works seven days a week through most of the court's October-to-July terms, a pace that he says leaves time for little else. He told an audience this year that he undergoes "an annual intellectual lobotomy" each time the court resumes its sessions.

National Public Radio first reported Souter's plans Thursday night.

[USA_Constitution]

Good riddens!

[weedapeapl]

7/11 is hiring. FREE SLURPEES!
Posted by gravypants at 4:06 PM : May 3, 2009

Does that mean you'll be changing your screen name to slurpeepants soon?

[noloyalisti]

The conservative movement has been working for a religious theocracy in this country for a long time. The Christian fascists already have far too much power. The conservatives have been working against the Constitution during the last Bush Crime Family administration of lying and hiding government from the people while big corporations started invasions for oil and wrote our energy policy.

Time for progressive and liberal change on the Court

[SanityPlease]

And the neoCommies are swooning even though the economy has tanked under Obama's watch
Posted by libRidiots at 11:41 AM : May 2, 2009

Typical Rush Limpaw follower, make a catastrophic mess of this great country, then blame it all on the other guy. SICK. SICK. SICK.

Its no wonder majority of the electorate has had it with you. You are history, my friend, quit grasping at straws to float yourself, you are trash and the whole world know it.

[slownewsday05]

Actually this is Mccain08nc and me a slow have conversed many times! I have had conversations with you I actually agree with you more then Slow on most ocasions.
Posted by stimporksuks

I can imagine. Regardless, I really like having people who can find a few common points, and turn that into a chance to hear other views in a somewhat sane environment. Not too many CAPITAL LETTERS TONIGHT, you know? Kinda nice for a change.

[slownewsday05]

It appears SND was talking to one of his nics .........
Posted by TheMasses01

It's a nervous habit, Masses. I can't help it.

Actually, stimporksuks had been mc08nc (shortened, for a really lame attempt at anonymity) pre-format-change.

It's late there!

[TheMasses01]

HA!


:)

[TheMasses01]

It appears SND was talking to one of his nics .........

[slownewsday05]

I will! Enjoy the rest of the weekend and I'll a have a cold one for you tomorrow.

Good Night!
Posted by stimporksuks

Will do, and thanks... See you tomorrow if you're around!

[slownewsday05]

So what happens if we get a majority conservative Supreme court and they interpret that practice as murder should we go back and prosecute the justices that ruled different and maybe all the doctors who perform abortion.

Posted by stimporksuks

My brain is just about done for the day, but if you'll be around tomorrow, I've copied both questions so I can answer a bit better when I'm more awake...

I think reverse prosecutions are often out - kind of a grandfathering thing. But I do get the point. You gonna be around tomorrow, too?

[slownewsday05]

Havn't been in NC much in hte past 30 days I have been all up and down the the east coast in the last 30 days. I've been in every state from florida to New York So I have seen 90's one day and been in snow the next. But I am home now so hopefully it won't rain tomorrow so I can have a cold beer and steak tomorrow before I go back on the road next week.
Posted by stimporksuks

Glad you're home for a bit...

Grill in the rain. I would have, I just didn't have steak in. The beer helps, and the rain sizzling on the grill, on top of sound of the steaks sizzling, makes it downright enjoyable.

Travel safely, my friend.

[slownewsday05]

Evening Slow hows your weekend?

Posted by stimporksuks

Hey, man!

No steaks. And mostly rain. But I had a good stockpile of beer. How does that average out? Worked pretty well for me...

How about you, NC?

[slownewsday05]

You see, I know the justices have a job to interpret. But, it isnt to interpret based on their views...but to interpret based on the views of those that wrote that law or part of the Constitution in the first place.

Posted by mortar29 at 9:00 PM : May 2, 2009


Our entire disagreement here has been regarding the fact that interpretation is required, hence the need for the judicial system.

In my defense, I thought I stated that a few thousand times.

I never said I endorsed actually CHANGING the Constitution without an Amendment.

There's a reason there's the word "precedent" in law, isn't there?

Glad we finally agree, which I believe we do.

[slownewsday05]

No, it's not. You just interpret it that way.

You deal in ideals, not reality.

____

It is the reverse! You argue with the political founders of this nation...

Posted by mortar29

Wrong again - I argue with you.

You seem to claim that English words don't have more than one interpretation, much less phrase, sentences, or entire documents.

They facts are against you in that.

[slownewsday05]

Yes, it does, as you mentioned their original intent. Sure, there are writings by the authors. All of them use English, which is subject to interpretation.

Otherwise, we wouldn't need courts.

I understand your attempt at an ideal, but it's not reality.

_

Of course it is reality. What you advocate is anarchy.

Posted by mortar29


No, it's not. You just interpret it that way.

You deal in ideals, not reality.

[slownewsday05]

meant "used", not "use", as they are dead...

[slownewsday05]

And all of those people are dead. Hence, we have a judicial branch to interpret it. Not legislate, just judge.

No judge should be allowed to espouse a political bias, in my opinion.

------

Being dead has nothing to do with it.

Posted by mortar29

Yes, it does, as you mentioned their original intent. Sure, there are writings by the authors. All of them use English, which is subject to interpretation.

Otherwise, we wouldn't need courts.

I understand your attempt at an ideal, but it's not reality.

[stn_sage]

To weedapeapl & nightsigma (?):

Guys! Don't get 'wrapped up' in analysis of my statement, it's not necessary!

I was merely stating my opinion, that had McCain gotten elected, he would have appointed a far-right judge! His people---supporters---would have expected and demanded that he do so!
This is a no-brainer! It certainly wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone!

Now---given the fact that Mr. Obama has pledged to try to represent all Americans---the ODDS are greater that he'll try to find a more moderate judge! We'll see! Maybe he will and maybe he won't! THAT---was all I was trying to say! Tomorrow's Sunday, go easy, boys!

[weedapeapl]

No, I mean 'debated' in the court of public opinion.
Posted by legacyabq at 8:20 PM : May 2, 2009

OK, so you're saying there are members of the public who are debating the indisputable.

Is that it???

[weedapeapl]

Absurd. A literal interpretation is not possible in a nation that is so changed. It's like trying to apply the Bible to daily life. Equally absurd.
Posted by eightsigma at 8:17 PM : May 2, 2009

Yes, that's the whole liberal approach to the Constitution.

It's old. Therefore it's absurd and inapplicable.

So they get to just make up a whole new Constitution out of whole cloth.

And they pretend that's the Constitution now.

Well, unless the old "absurd" Constitution favors their agenda. Then it's sacred.

So that's the SCOTUSA's job. Deciding which parts of the Constitution are sacred based on the convenience of the moment, and which parts they may freely re-write as they please because the old one is "absurd."

And there's no rule that the parts that are "sacred" or "absurd" today are the same parts that will be 'sacred" or "absurd" tomorrow.

You just get to make up the rules as you go along. And the Constitution is a source of possible suggestoins if you can find a way to twist it around to mean the opposite of what it says in plain English, if that suits your agenda.

Like freedom of religious expression means religious expression is banished only to the same settings where you could engage in defecation or lewdness.

Yes, that's the kind of liberal thinking that we don't need any more of.

Thank you very much.