Ginsburg is the overwhelming choice in this incredibly unscientific poll. With age and cancer going against her it's no surprise. I'm hoping Clarence Thomas decides to do something else with his life instead of wasting a seat on the court.

When it's news that he cleared his throat and almost asked a question, we have a problem. Has he ever decented from a Scalia or Alito vote? "Tell me what to say, gentlemen. I have naps to catch up on!"

BTW, my distaste for Thomas has nothing to do with his conservative views. If that were the case, I'd call for Scalia's resignation, first. But, we could benefit from that one, too.

I definitely agree with your assessment of Clarence Thomas. In essence, Scalia has two votes. Clarence is no Thurgood Marshall.

It looks as though Justice Stevens will be next to retire.

If the head liberal on the SCOTUS retires it will be interesting to watch the battle to seat his replacement.

"head liberal"? Why the need to categorize the guy? I'm sure if you looked into his jurisprudence you would find opinions which would lead you to call him conservative.

Stevens, so far as I am aware, seems to be a non-ideological, non-"activist" justice who interprets the law without regard to his personal political opinions.

I've said it before, but those who need to categorize people and ideas have either small or lazy minds.

"I've said it before, but those who need to categorize people and ideas have either small or lazy minds."


I just wanted to highlight your comment as this concept is apparently "unnatural" to some on these boards.

Highlight away. That kind of stuff drives me nuts, or should I say nuttier.

And that is twice you have tried to run that half cocked idea by me. Many of the articles about this retirement have voiced the same liberal brand on him for a reason. The things that conservative have put at the top of their liberal list, abortion and gay rights, he is liberal.

Small or lazy minds? How condescending of you.

People generally have a tendency to be liberal or conservative. That suffices even when there are exceptions in their decisions to earn them a spot in some category. If that doesn't work for you and you need a psychological workup on their full personality go for it.

Just one 2007 NY Times example of his leanings:

So reporters with small and/or lazy minds render people and ideas to categories and you follow their lead.

You have a tendency to be pompous, you know.

What say we write opinions, contribute what we can, bounce ideas off one another and leave our excessive self esteem out of it? This tendency to be our den mother really sucks.

I am writing my opinions, amongst which is that you have a tendency to categorize folks and ideas. Otherwise know as knee jerking.

I really don't understand how that amounts to "excessive self esteem" or being a "den mother", but have it your way.

What really amuses me about people who claim Stevens is a liberal is that he was appointed by Gerald Ford.

Liberal? Stevens is a conservative from the time when conservatives were centrists, as opposed to today, when "conservatives" are the far right wing.

Which illustrates why the labels have become meaningless.

I usually don't get into these kind of discussions and I will be getting out of it after this post. Even the insinuation about my small and lazy mind wouldn't pull me into them. I prefer discussions about events and opinions and I gave up flame wars a long time ago.

I simply broke my own rule: Never reply right away to a post that ticks you off. Let time go by and come back and address it and turn the discussion into something you want to discuss or just drop it altogether.

A reply to your post comes quickly to mind but I think we both have gone far enough in this discussion. I enjoy your posts and your participation. We differ greatly in our thinking but that is good. It would be boring otherwise.

Apologies for feathers ruffled.

If a real conservative was appointed to the court in Stevens place(unlikely) and a Roe vs. Wade was revisited what do you think would happen to abortion rights?

Presidents for many years have been trying to pick justices that echo their philosophies. That hasn't worked very well. Justices also change, as Stevens has changed.

You didn't ruffle my feathers. I'm addressing the ideas you post not attacking you personally.

Stevens is a real conservative. Real conservatives don't complain about "activist judges" and then overturn a century of established law, as the Roberts Court did with the D.C. gun control case.

An interesting, if somewhat aged, perspective on the subject.

Stevens moved to the left on the death penalty and affirmative action laws.

Completely false, but whatever you say.

I actually thought he evolved on his views for these issues, as well. I'm looking forward to this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18memo.html

Those who voted to uphold the death penalty in 1976, he said, “relied heavily on our belief that adequate procedures were in place” to treat death penalty cases with special care so as to minimize bias and error.

“Ironically, however,” he continued, “more recent cases have endorsed procedures that provide less protections to capital defendants than to ordinary offenders.”

In other words, his position hasn't changed, and unlike the Times writer who seems so eager to put words in his mouth, he has not "renounced the death penalty."

His position is and always has been that the death penalty itself isn't inappropriate--what's inappropriate is rushing someone into the death chamber without "adequate procedures in place to treat death penalty cases with special care so as to minimize bias and error."

I suspect a closer examination of his views on affirmative action would reveal a similar consistency.

May I suggest you research Steven's jurisprudence beyond one NYT opinion piece.

...He (Turnow) types condescendingly,

as if I had never read death penalty decisions.


Stevens previously believed that the death penalty was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment (Gregg v. Georgia; Jurek v. Texas; Proffitt v. Florida), however, in a move toward the left he wrote in Baze v. Rees:

"In sum, just as Justice White ultimately based his conclusion in Furman on his extensive exposure to countless cases for which death is the authorized penalty, I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes.

A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment .” Furman, 408 U. S., at 312 (White, J., concurring).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZC1.html#19


Scalia had such a WTC? reaction to Stevens's opinion, that he wrote (again, Baze v. Rees):

"I join the opinion of Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment. I write separately to provide what I think is needed response to Justice Stevens’ separate opinion."

and

"What prompts Justice Stevens to repudiate his prior view and to adopt the astounding position that a criminal sanction expressly mentioned in the Constitution violates the Constitution?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-5439.ZC2.html

I wasn't referring to only the death penalty. Death penalty decisions are not the sum total of a Justice's "jurisprudence".

Scalia, as usual, goes right to the bloodletting. What is it about you Republibaggers being so sadistic?

The rights of persons accused of capital crimes are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but there is no endorsement of capital punishment.

At any rate, I stand by my earlier post.

Which ruling/decision/case would you like to discuss next?

You do that, Beavis.
You'll be standing with it way out in left field, as usual.

Left field exists, in reality.

I definitely agree with your assessment of Clarence Thomas,too!