DSD on the Democratic Presidential Supreme Court picks……

I’m sure it’s my own blinders, but it seems as if Democratic Presidents appoint reasonable but rather spongy moderates (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) while Republicans appoint true-believing ideologues (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas), with only Anthony Kennedy as more of a technical or non-ideological lawyer. I haven’t checked the sequence, but someone said that recent justices have always been replaced by someone more conservative or less liberal.

And as I’ve often said……

………..with the departure of Souter and O’Connor, there seems to be no one on the court who’s had regular experience, as a prosecutor, trial-level judge or public defender, with the way that motions are handled, testimony originally given and juries addressed at the pre-appellate level. This gives something of an unrealistic air to their theoretical expectations of (for example) what is an improper influence on a juror or an unreasonable burden on a defendant or plaintiff. A possible exception might be Thomas’s service in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, depending on what kind of work this involved (appeals or trial-level prosecutions and lawsuits).

Democratic Socialist Dave

Should it manner?…..The Protestant-Free Court…..

Good question from Ed Kilgore over @ Fivethirtyeight.…..

The religious, as opposed to ideological, composition of the U.S. Supreme Court has become less important to most people in recent decades. But it’s still being noticed that the proposed nomination of Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens would create, for the first time, a Supreme Court with no professed Protestant Christians—instead, six Roman Catholics and three Jews.

When the burgeoning Catholic majority on the Court became an issue during the Sotomayor nomination debate, Andrew Gelman did a quick analysis here of the Court’s religious composition over the centuries, noting that Protestants were a long way from suffering any overall under-representation. It’s a good time to look a little deeper at religious representation on the Court.

There’s More…

Comments anyone?

The Kagan Supreme Court watch……..

The Dog believes that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is the front-runner for the soon to be vacated Stephens spot on the Supreme Court…..

I also believe …as I have said here that the spot is her’s to lose ….with Obama going thru the motions…but interested in her…

I could be wrong…But the Dog correctly picked Judge Sotomayor as Obama’s first choice…..

Here’s ole’ Arlen Spector’s comments ona Kagan nomination to the court….

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said Wednesday he’d take a “fresh look” at Solicitor General Elena Kagan if she’s nominated to the Supreme Court.

Specter, who, as a Republican, had voted against Kagan’s confirmation to become solicitor general, said he would re-evaluate Kagan if President Barack Obama picks her to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court nominations are a little different from solicitor general,” Specter said during an appearance on MSNBC. “I have an open mind.”

The senior member of the Judiciary Committee has pivoted on some issues since having switched parties to pursue reelection as a Democrat, a reelection battle in which he’s facing a liberal primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.).

To that end, Specter expressed some regret for having supported and helped shepherd now-Chief Justice John Roberts through his Senate confirmation.

More……..

The President and Chief Justice Roberts compete for the direction of the Supreme Court…..And DADT on potential justices….

With a second choice for a job on the court coming Obama’s way…..

He must consider all the obstacles in his way in ‘putting his stamp’ on the court…..

Can he get his choice for the seat done by the fall opening of the court?

And does one’s sexual orioentaion factor in?

The New York Times suggests that President Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have emerged “as the intellectual gladiators in a great struggle over the role of government in American society. In this moment of churning uncertainty and ideological ferment, it is a struggle that is already defining the selection of the next Supreme Court justice and could easily help shape the course of the nation for years to come.”

“Much more so than last year, when he made his first nomination to the court, Mr. Obama has Chief Justice Roberts on his mind as he mulls his second, according to Democrats close to the White House. For an activist president, the chief justice has emerged clearly in recent months as a potentially formidable obstacle, and Mr. Obama has signaled that he plans to use the political arena and his appointment power to counter the direction of the Roberts court.”

The big question: Does this mean Obama is more likely to pick a politician to fill his second Supreme Court vacancy — such as Janet Napolitano or Jennifer Granholm — to help him spar with Roberts?

More……..

On the sexual orientation of any choice.…..

What you do in the privacy on your bedroom is YOUR BUSINESS……

And should have nothing to do with being a judge….if that’s what we have here….

Did you know? …… The Supreme Court Justices have to go to Congress for money …..

This story starts off about the Supreme Court ( Justices Clarence Thomas and  Stephen Breyer ) going up to the Hill to ask the House for more money for more (12 to 24 ) police officer’s for the Supreme Court……

[ Justices Breyer and Thomas ]

Thomas said the court was making the request “with some reluctance” but that the court’s security personnel felt a strong need after conducting a review. The review came after the justices were asked specifically about security needs at last year’s funding hearing.

Most of the new officers would be used to secure areas of the court building and grounds that will be newly opened to the public following completion of its renovation.

“We understand this is a period of austerity,” Thomas said in outlining the court’s $77 million overall budget request, which included an increase of 5 percent from the previous year.

The visit gave the House memeber’s to quiz the Justice’s (ironic ..isn’t that?) on other issues besides money…..

The justices discussed a range of issues related to the federal judiciary, with the notable exception of any actual cases, which the lawmakers recognized as off limits.

At one point, Thomas became involved in a tense exchange with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who pressed the justice on the lack of diversity among the Supreme Court’s prestigious clerkships.

Lee, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, asked if the court had made any effort to attract clerks from minority groups and particularly from law schools outside of the Ivy League. Thomas responded that while he looks for clerks from a wide range of schools, the justices start from a pool of candidates that have clerked for other federal appellate courts.

Within that pool, Thomas said, “Hispanics and blacks do not show up in any great numbers.”

When Lee asked how the justices could increase the pool, Thomas demurred. “I don’t think it’s up to us to increase the pool,” he said.

The answer did not satisfy Lee, who brought up Thomas’s votes against affirmative action during his time on the bench.

And about camera’s in the court…..

Breyer was also asked by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) about the prospect of opening the high court to cameras for the first time. The justice backed a pilot program for cameras in lower federal courts, but he said it would take a while before a “comfort level” is reached to allow Supreme Court proceedings to be televised.

“How to get to that comfort level is going to be a long, complicated matter,” he said. “Eventually we’ll get to the comfort level, but we’re not there yet.”

He warned that once cameras are allowed in, “there’s no going back.”

Schiff replied that the only way the justices would reach that point of comfort would be “by taking the plunge.”

The discussion of cameras in the courtroom also provided for one of the hearing’s lighter moments.

Subcommittee Chairman José Serrano (D-N.Y.) noted that one argument against allowing cameras would be that the justices’ remarks could be taken out of context in the overheated atmosphere of cable news.

“Did you hear Breyer? What a jerk! Did you hear what question he asked? Did you hear Thomas? Oh my god!” Serrano said, doing his best imitation of an MSNBC or Fox News talk show.

At that point, Thomas, who has a well-known reputation for never asking questions during Supreme Court oral arguments, replied, “No, you mean you didn’t hear me.” The room erupted in laughter.

More……..

Justice John Paul Stevens considers retiring from the Supreme Court…..

[ Stevens, asked if he regrets any recent Court decisions, says, “There are a lot I’m very unhappy with. ]

This will mean that President Obama will have to appoint a judge in the Stevens  policy realm just to keep the court with it’s present balance…

Stevens tells The New Yorker magazine that he definitely will retire in the next three years. His comments suggest that President Barack Obama, whom Stevens says he admires, will likely nominate his successor.

The leader of the court’s liberals, Stevens is the second oldest justice in U.S. history and fourth longest-serving. He says that breaking those records doesn’t interest him.

Republican President Gerald R. Ford nominated Stevens to the court in 1975. Stevens turns 90 in April.

From The New Yorker piece……

After Stevens

What will the Supreme Court be like without its liberal leader?

by Jeffrey Toobin

Supreme Court Justices are remembered for their opinions, but they are revealed by their questions. For many years, Sandra Day O’Connor chose to open the questioning in most cases, and thus show the lawyers—and her colleagues—which way she, as the Court’s swing vote, was leaning. Today, Antonin Scalia often jumps in first, signalling the intentions of the Court’s ascendant conservative wing, and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., makes his views, which are usually aligned with Scalia’s, equally clear. New Justices tend to defer to their senior colleagues, but Sonia Sotomayor, in her first year on the Court, has displayed little reluctance to test lawyers on the facts and the procedural posture of their cases; these kinds of questions had generally been the province of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, at times, has not seemed entirely pleased by the newcomer’s vigor. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., often says little; Clarence Thomas never says anything. (Thomas has not asked a question at an oral argument since 2006.)

John Paul Stevens, who will celebrate his ninetieth birthday on April 20th, generally bides his time. Stevens is the Court’s senior Justice, in every respect. He is thirteen years older than his closest colleague in age (Ginsburg) and has served eleven years longer than the next most experienced (Scalia). Appointed by President Gerald R. Ford, in 1975, Stevens is the fourth-longest-serving Justice in the Court’s history; the record holder is the man Stevens replaced, William O. Douglas, who retired after thirty-six and a half years on the bench. Stevens is a generation or two removed from most of his colleagues; when Roberts served as a law clerk to William H. Rehnquist, Stevens had already been a Justice for five years. He was the last nominee before the Reagan years, when confirmations became contested territory in the culture wars (and he was also, not coincidentally, the last whose confirmation hearings were not broadcast live on television). In some respects, Stevens comes from another world; in a recent opinion, he noted that contemporary views on marijuana laws were “reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student.”