PDA

View Full Version : Justice Souter to Retire


TwinSwords
05-01-2009, 02:08 AM
Maybe Obama should walk the walk of his big tent philosophy and appoint a conservative Republican from the Federalist Society to replace Souter?!? ;-)

Entertaining bit of history (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/04/souter-to-retire.html) from LGM: "Bush I appointed Souter in large measure because some people at the DOJ felt that Ken Starr wasn't wingnutty enough....":

Great Moments in Bullet Dodging (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-moments-in-bullet-dodging.html)

cognitive madisonian
05-02-2009, 07:24 PM
I'll be happy with a non-radical. Anything resembling a conservative would make me do cartwheels in the street :p

Souter is an entirely unremarkable justice, perhaps the least distinguished member of the Supreme Court in modern times. He will soon be forgotten and good riddance to an average intellect. I hope he enjoys a long and healthy retirement, but one that removes him from the public spotlight to an obscure liberal arts college somewhere in the northeast.

AemJeff
05-02-2009, 08:18 PM
I'll be happy with a non-radical. Anything resembling a conservative would make me do cartwheels in the street :p

Souter is an entirely unremarkable justice, perhaps the least distinguished member of the Supreme Court in modern times. He will soon be forgotten and good riddance to an average intellect. I hope he enjoys a long and healthy retirement, but one that removes him from the public spotlight to an obscure liberal arts college somewhere in the northeast.

There is almost nobody who seriously holds this opinion. You're confusing barbed political shots from his partisan opponents with actuality.

cognitive madisonian
05-02-2009, 08:25 PM
Ok, point me to his major accomplishments on the bench. Pretty much every other member has in some way distinguished themselves. Souter never did. And his judicial philosophy is typical stateism, including a rejection of a right to private property. Bad philosophy, no accomplishment.

AemJeff
05-02-2009, 08:38 PM
Ok, point me to his major accomplishments on the bench. Pretty much every other member has in some way distinguished themselves. Souter never did. And his judicial philosophy is typical stateism, including a rejection of a right to private property. Bad philosophy, no accomplishment.

You're nattering about your own views, not anything to do the topic. Why should your view of his "statism" or your opposition to his "philosophy" (which I doubt you could succinctly characterize) have any bearing here? And, you've never heard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Not exactly insignificant.

cognitive madisonian
05-02-2009, 08:40 PM
It's a terrible ruling and basically the one notable case in which he wrote an opinion.

And my 'view' has bearing here because it's an observation that his philosophy is dangerous statism.