Justice Souter retiring

[Monsoon65]

I wonder what liberal judge Obama will appoint in his place?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_souter_retiring

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writer – 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Justice David Souter has told the White House that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the court's term in June, a source said Thursday night.

The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.

Speculation that the 69-year-old justice will be stepping down has been fueled by his failure to appoint law clerks from the fall term.

National Public Radio reported that Souter will remain on the bench until a successor is confirmed.

The Supreme Court declined to comment on the report.

Souter's retirement would give President Barack Obama his first pick for the high court. Court watchers expect him to choose a woman to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the only woman on the Supreme Court.

Souter has never made any secret of his dislike for Washington, 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 New Hampshire.

He has been on the court since 1990, when he was an obscure federal appeals court judge until President George H.W.. Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court.

Bush White House aide John Sununu, the former conservative governor of New Hampshire, hailed his choice as a "home run." And early in his time in Washington, Souter was called a moderate conservative.

But he soon joined in a ruling reaffirming woman's right to an abortion, a decision from 1992 that remains still perhaps his most noted work on the court.

Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court, and was one of the four dissenters in the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore that sealed the presidential election for George W. Bush.

Yet as Souter biographer Tinsley Yarbrough noted, "he doesn't take extreme positions." Indeed, in June, Souter sided with Exxon Mobil Corp. and broke with his liberal colleagues in slashing the punitive damages the company owed Alaskan victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

[Sigaba]

Another report on Souter's retirement. Source is here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193).

Legal Affairs
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

by Nina Totenberg

NPR.org, April 30, 2009 · NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court's age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court's more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

In addition, Souter was apparently satisfied that neither the court's oldest member, 89-year-old John Paul Stevens, nor its lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery over the winter, wanted to retire at the end of this term. Not wanting to cause a second vacancy, Souter apparently had waited to learn his colleagues' plans before deciding his own.

Given his first appointment to the high court, most observers expect Obama will appoint a woman, since the court currently has only one female justice and Obama was elected with strong support from women. But an Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court.

Souter was a Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, largely on the recommendation of New Hampshire's former Gov. John Sununu, who had become the first President Bush's chief of staff.

But Souter surprised Bush and other Republicans by joining the court's more liberal wing.

He generally votes with Stevens and the two justices who were appointed by President Bill Clinton — making up the bloc of four more liberal members of the court, a group that has usually been in the minority throughout Souter's tenure.

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.

By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is anticipated to have a 60th Democrat, as the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to approve the recount that elected Democrat Al Franken over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in that state.

[Richard]

So - has anyone done a tax records check on possible nominees to see which one owes back taxes and, if the cabinet nominations are a guide, an odds on favorite for nomination? ;)

This is the opinion of GWU law professor Jonathan Turley:

Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. He was part of a pattern of nominees selected in part due to his low profile and uncontroversial history. Like Sandra Day O’Connor, there was little for democrats to attack in Souter’s history. He had a powerful supporter in John Sununu, Bush’s chief of staff. Yet, he proved far more liberal than anyone in the GOP imagined — becoming a lightening rod for the right who would later insist on ideological purity and almost robotic loyalty in the selection of Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito.

This will now be the first (but probably not the last) nominee for Barack Obama. The nominee sweepstakes will now begin. One interesting prospect would be Diane Wood, who serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and taught at the University of Chicago when Obama was on the faculty. Wood would be a nod to Obama’s Chicago roots and would add a second woman to the Court. She would also present a relatively easy confirmation.

The loss of Souter will be felt by Court watchers. I was once asked who I would keep on the Court if I had my druthers. I mentioned Souter because he was one of the few members who did not believe that he was anointed rather than appointed to the Court. Souter is a remarkably self-effacing and gentle person. He is universally liked by the other justices and Court staff. I particularly appreciated that, unlike some of his colleagues, Souter never sought public acclaim or attention. He worked very hard at getting decisions right. While he was more liberal than many Republicans wanted, he was not as predictable as some on the Court. He remained more of a jurist than a purist in his decision; trying to resolve issues without ideological flourishes or grandstanding.

I am not surprised about this retirement in one sense. Souter always maintained his personality and persona separate from the Court. He is an intensely private man. I always viewed him as the quintessential hardy East Coast Yankee stock: quiet, strong, and principled. While his departure will not result in a great shift on the Court or the loss of a dominant voice, his departure will remove someone who bought great civility and dignity to the Court. His was a reassuring voice at a time of shrill ideology and controversy. He will be remembered well for his time on the Court and is a towering example of how the first George Bush (who regretted his selection) inadvertently made the right decision for the wrong reason.

There is a very funny story about how Souter and Justice Breyer were routinely confused for one another. It was…a running joke at the Court that outsiders frequently mistook Souter and Breyer for each other. On one trip back to New Hampshire, a couple went up to Souter at a roadside dinner and mistook him for Breyer. Souter went along rather than embarrass them and correct. He was then asked, “Justice Breyer, what’s the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?” He reportedly thought deeply and responded, “Well, I’d have to say it’s the privilege of serving with David Souter.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/30/justice-david-souter-to-retire/

Bio is here: http://jonathanturley.org/about/

As the man says, "The nominee sweepstakes will now begin."

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[grog18b]

Too bad Hillary is busy... Bill perhaps? He brought back most of that Administration anyway...:rolleyes:

[Utah Bob]

It just keeps getting better.:(

[The Reaper]

Another GHWB mistake.

He should have picked a strong centrist-conservative, and the Klinton years would have been more tolerable.

There is no doubt in my mind that the "centrist-moderate" Souter (as described by the extreme leftist media), will be replaced by the craziest, most liberal, socialist, feminazi Mr. Obama can find, ala Ginsberg. She will have no trouble whatsoever passing through the nomination process on straight line party voting (now that Specter the Defector has shown his true colors).

Sorry, but I would like to see another centrist like Scalia, myself.:D

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Souter is one of the most liberal members of the Court right now, so Obama can't go much further left on this seat. The timing makes me want to punch the guy in the face. Thanks for the loyalty, asshole.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Hadn't thought of Justice Souter when I thought of Supreme Court appointments for Obama. Good riddance with the sandbagging liberal turncoat.

Makes me wonder if Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, wasn't a team player for retiring during the Bush Administration. (I know they are "neutral".) I've never chanted "four more years", but I will for Stevens.

ADDED:

Yes Sir - Thanks for the correction... Stevens even wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnlx=1214566644-y9NRsbBuErVCPyegbU0ryg) the 5-4 win of District of Columbia v. Heller was “a dramatic upheaval in the law” and was based on “a strained and unpersuasive reading” of the text and history of the Second Amendment. :o

[The Reaper]

Hadn't thought of Justice Souter when I thought of Supreme Court appointments for Obama. Good riddance with the sandbagging liberal turncoat.

Makes me wonder if Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, wasn't a team player for retiring during the Bush Administration. (I know they are "neutral".) I've never chanted "four more years", but I will for Stevens.

Why?

Stevens is another "stealth candidate" who was appointed by Ford before turning to the dark side.

TR

[Richard]

This is beginning to sound like a "Revenge of the Sith" episode. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[greenberetTFS]

Guys, I don't know the names of the candidates, but I can tell you who will make it. She will be a woman,black and highly intelligent in judicial experience .;) Any one care to wager me about my guess?

GB TFS :munchin

[Utah Bob]

Guys, I don't know the names of the candidates, but I can tell you who will make it. She will be a woman,black and highly intelligent in judicial experience .;) Any one care to wager me about my guess?

GB TFS :munchin

I'm thinking a Hispanic female.

[greenberetTFS]

Let's just be glad it's a liberal being replaced by a liberal instead of a conservative retiring and being replaced by a liberal.

B2004,

Good point and your absolutely right, that would be a very sad situation, thank God thats not the case....................:rolleyes:

GB TFS :munchin

[armymom1228]

Guys, I don't know the names of the candidates, but I can tell you who will make it. She will be a woman,black and highly intelligent in judicial experience .;) Any one care to wager me about my guess?

GB TFS :munchin

I bet the First Lady will do the picking. :D So who fits that bill anyone have any idea?

[TrapLine]

Sorry, but I would like to see another centrist like Scalia, myself.:D

TR

My thoughts exactly. I can only hope/pray that one turncoat will replace the next, and the libs will be the ones surprised this time. I am guessing, however, that the nominee will be adequately liberal to ensure that won't happen. But there are no litmus tests:rolleyes:.

[Richard]

How about Judge Edward Cashman of Vermont? :eek:

There was outrage when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

Maybe he could handle the Gitmo cases for us. :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Utah Bob]

There was outrage when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.


Rehab by rope works.
Other methods are much less effective.

[armymom1228]

Rehab by rope works.
Other methods are much less effective.

As far as I know, there are no real effective methods to stop that sort
of behavior. Short of death or removal of the offensive organ.. I am much in favor of a "bobbit procedure" myself. :D

[armymom1228]

Another GHWB mistake.

He should have picked a strong centrist-conservative, and the Klinton years would have been more tolerable.

There is no doubt in my mind that the "centrist-moderate" Souter (as described by the extreme leftist media), will be replaced by the craziest, most liberal, socialist, feminazi Mr. Obama can find, ala Ginsberg. She will have no trouble whatsoever passing through the nomination process on straight line party voting (now that Specter the Defector has shown his true colors).

Sorry, but I would like to see another centrist like Scalia, myself.:D

TR

Agreed. I wish thise justices would just interpret the Constitution without thier political bias. I don't recall the Constitution being written either left or right.

[greenberetTFS]

Rehab by rope works.
Other methods are much less effective.

Agreed, all in favor say "aye"............... The aye's have it. Rehab by rope...........;)

GB TFS :munchin

[Richard]

Feeding hand..meet biting mouth. :rolleyes:

Some gay rights groups, for example, are unhappy that the administration is moving at a snail's pace on efforts to replace the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with one that lets gay people serve openly in the armed services.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin



Analysis: New justice may reignite social issues
AP, 3 May 2009

President Barack Obama has tried to hold off debate on contentious social issues such as abortion, immigration and gay rights as he focuses on the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Supreme Court vacancy will make that harder to do.

Political battles over new justices tend to center on those types of social issues far more than on economic and foreign affairs, which have dominated the opening months of Obama's administration.

Some liberals have criticized Obama for postponing efforts to revamp immigration laws, protect access to abortion and allow gays to serve openly in the military. The president has taken the heat from his political base, hoping to avoid getting bogged down on a volatile issue early in his term, as President Bill Clinton did on the question of gays in the military.

The strategy has worked so far. Even the grumbling liberals are, on balance, happy to have Obama in the White House after eight years of Republican George W. Bush. And the economic distress has preoccupied Congress and the general public.

But the process to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter could pump new oxygen into national debates over abortion, immigration, minority rights, limits to privacy and other matters.

"There's no doubt these debates are coming back," said Matt Bennett, vice president of the centrist Democratic group Third Way. They might create more noise than suspense, he said, because there is little doubt that the Democratic-dominated Senate will confirm Obama's eventual choice. Liberal activists will "fall in line" even if they are not entirely satisfied with the administration's progress on their pet issues, Bennett said.

Obama has tried to push several of these social issues to the political background. At his news conference Wednesday, he said a bill important to abortion-rights advocates is not his highest priority. Access to abortion must be protected, he said, but "the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on."

He was similarly noncommittal on immigration, which his aides see as one of the most difficult and emotional issues around. As a candidate, Obama said the nation must devise a way to help millions of illegal immigrants achieve legal status if they follow certain guidelines. But he has been mostly silent on the subject since his election. On Wednesday, he suggested he's at the mercy of a slow-moving Congress, which has proved unable to agree about immigration for years.

"Ultimately, I don't have control of the legislative calendar," Obama said, "and so we're going to work with legislative leaders to see what we can do."

A Supreme Court nomination process threatens to amplify criticisms of Obama from liberals. Relatively few have added their voices so far to critics from the right. But those who have spoken out are likely to get more attention, and perhaps more support.

Some gay rights groups, for example, are unhappy that the administration is moving at a snail's pace on efforts to replace the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with one that lets gay people serve openly in the armed services.

Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who advised Clinton on gay rights, wrote in Saturday's Washington Post that Obama is erring by "waiting for some magical 'right time' to move boldly," and now is "a uniquely opportune moment to act."

Over a range of issues, Socarides wrote, "the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform. So why not on gay rights?"

On immigration, some mainstream Democratic activists have joined Latino groups in urging Obama to get the legislative process moving soon. Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, says there are several reasons to tackle the difficult issue this year. They include better pay scales for blue-collar workers if employers cannot exploit illegal immigrants, and better U.S. relations with Latin American countries.

Several liberal groups are dismayed that the Obama administration tried to block a lawsuit alleging that Bush broke the law when he authorized warrantless domestic spying on terrorism suspects. It was the second time that Obama officials, echoing the Bush administration, argued that the "state secrets privilege" trumped federal law in national security matters.

At his news conference Wednesday, Obama said he would like to change the state secrets privilege, but he asked for more time.

A Supreme Court confirmation battle, with televised Senate hearings, could energize liberal activists on all these fronts.

With Democrats now controlling the White House and Congress, conservative groups are almost certain to be loud and active in the upcoming debate. It might help them raise money, some Democrats say, but it won't necessarily advance their political agenda.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court_analysis

[armymom1228]

I don't remember the three names put out there this morning on the Sunday news shows...but TR called it right on target. ULTRA Left, Radical, Female,
FemNazi... I shudder with fright for what they might do to MY country for years to come.. not enough conservatives to balance out the court.

I remember Obama saying something about the Constitution being a document that had little worth and was out of date during the campaign.
I could not believe the MSM media did not jump on that. I mean what if HE managed to get something like the Bill of Rights revoked. The MSM would be up the creek without a paddle then. They rely so heavily on that Freedom of Speech right... perhaps, if we are lucky, their forcing of Obama on the people will come back and bite them on the butt.. :munchin

White American Males, might want to apply for endangered species status.

I guess someone like me who 'harbors' them will be guilty of treason?:D

[wet dog]

How can the 1000 elected control the 350,000,000 of us?

[swpa19]

Some gay rights groups, for example, are unhappy that the administration is moving at a snail's pace on efforts to replace the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy

The estimated percentage of gays in America is to be about 11 or 12%. Why should we adapt a civil and military lifestyle to accomodate this small of a percentage.

There are larger percentages in ethnid groups than there are in gay groups. I dont recall hearing from the Italian, Czech, German or Lower Slabovian groups asking for special treatment.

[The Reaper]

The estimated percentage of gays in America is to be about 11 or 12%. Why should we adapt a civil and military lifestyle to accomodate this small of a percentage.

I believe that figure is an exaggeration gay rights groups like to use based on inmate surveys and the real proportion of U.S. citizens who are gay is much lower.

Are we so short on troops for the all-volunteer force that we must risk the integrity of it for a social experiment?

At what cost, and for what reward?

TR

[The Reaper]

Wow.

TR

Napolitano Declines to Rule Out Interest in Supreme Court Appointment

Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

FOXNews.com

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Justice Napolitano?

The homeland security secretary might just like the ring of it. Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

"I've got my hands full with the flu right now, and I'm just going to stick with that," she said.

When host Chris Wallace told Napolitano, "That's a non-answer," she replied: "That's all you're gonna get."

She added: "I think the president has many, many excellent choices before him and that's his choice to make."

Napolitano is the former governor and attorney general of Arizona.

Speculation has centered on potential female justices, since only one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is on the Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor, judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and Elena Kagan, solicitor general and former Harvard Law School dean, among others, are considered possible picks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC's "This Week" that he personally would like to see more women on the court.

"Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States," he said Sunday. "I think we should have more women, we should have more minorities."

[Defender968]

Wow.

TR

Napolitano Declines to Rule Out Interest in Supreme Court Appointment

Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

FOXNews.com

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Justice Napolitano?

The homeland security secretary might just like the ring of it. Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

"I've got my hands full with the flu right now, and I'm just going to stick with that," she said.

When host Chris Wallace told Napolitano, "That's a non-answer," she replied: "That's all you're gonna get."

She added: "I think the president has many, many excellent choices before him and that's his choice to make."

Napolitano is the former governor and attorney general of Arizona.

Speculation has centered on potential female justices, since only one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is on the Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor, judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and Elena Kagan, solicitor general and former Harvard Law School dean, among others, are considered possible picks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC's "This Week" that he personally would like to see more women on the court.

"Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States," he said Sunday. "I think we should have more women, we should have more minorities."

The fact that she's even being considered scares me so much that I can't even express it in words, the only comfort I have is I think the one is looking for a different demographic, not that whoever he chooses will necessarily be better, but I can't see how they could be any worse than Janet the oxygen thief.

[armymom1228]

The fact that she's even being considered scares me so much that I can't even express it in words, the only comfort I have is I think the one is looking for a different demographic, not that whoever he chooses will necessarily be better, but I can't see how they could be any worse than Janet the oxygen thief.

I watched "This Week" this morning. The other two are equally as bad. The Senator this is head of the Judicial committee was not enthused over either of them either. I am very concerned over all of this.. since Obama clearly stated at one point in the campaign that the Constitution was something that he felt was no relevant in this country anymore, or words equaling that effect.

This whole issue bothers me a great deal.

What would a liberal court do.... I mean what is before it at the moment or possible future pending?

[SF_BHT]

The fact that she's even being considered scares me so much that I can't even express it in words, the only comfort I have is I think the one is looking for a different demographic, not that whoever he chooses will necessarily be better, but I can't see how they could be any worse than Janet the oxygen thief.

She is only being considered in her mind I would bet......

Sen Specter wants a person in the mold of a Statesman/Stateswoman. He said he could imagine a nominee who was not a lawyer, if that person had the right credentials. He also said we need more people to express a womans point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American...somebody who's done something more than wear black robes for most of their lives.

I am not a legal wizard but in the last 100 years has anyone that was not a lawyer been a SCJ? Can they ? That would be like putting me on the bench. It would be a great south park series if I was on the bench. Retired Crazy SF Vet goes to DC and turns it upside down looking for who stole his Bourbon and is under investigation for hitting on all of the cute clerks and interns...... Hell I better throw my hat in the basket....... :munchin

[armymom1228]

Retired Crazy SF Vet goes to DC and turns it upside down looking for who stole his Bourbon and is under investigation for hitting on all of the cute clerks and interns...... Hell I better throw my hat in the basket....... :munchin

Would those be boy or girl interns and clerks you would be hitting on Sir?:D :D

As I understand it, there is already a Senate investigation going over your Bourbon... I had it on good authority from an unnamed source at the Capitol.
:munchin

[SF_BHT]

Would those be boy or girl interns and clerks you would be hitting on Sir?:D :D

As I understand it, there is already a Senate investigation going over your Bourbon... I had it on good authority from an unnamed source at the Capitol.
:munchin

My interns will be Latina's

Yes I have to do a video Conf ref the missing Cases....... Do not know when the committee meeting will start but I am waiting....:p

[armymom1228]

Yes I have to do a video Conf ref the missing Cases....... Do not know when the committee meeting will start but I am waiting....:p

My source says look in Ted's drawer:munchin

[armymom1228]

IF anyone is interested. Here is a list of the last sessions opinions.
Some are fairly interesting.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html

[Counsel]

Sonia Sotomayor from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...maybe? In any case there are no guarantees as to the path any new Justice would take on the Court. :munchin

[Sigaba]

Wow.

When I read news article in this post, I thought that it was an example Ms. Napolitano being too self absorbed to realize that Chris Wallace was baiting her to talk about her favorite topic: herself. The thought was that only Ms. Napolitano could believe that she was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court given her performance as secretary of homeland security.

And now there's this. Source is here (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D985I63O1&show_article=1).

AP source: Obama has more than 6 people for court
May 13 03:44 PM US/Eastern
By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court.

An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

The official said there were other people under consideration. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because no names have been publicly revealed by the White House.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP)—President Barack Obama plans to announce his Supreme Court choice soon but isn't saying who is being seriously considered, senators who met with him said Wednesday.

"I don't envy him the decision, but I think he's going to make it soon," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told The Associated Press after a private White House session. "I think when he goes out west today and tomorrow, he's going to have a lot of stuff on the airplane with him."

Obama was leaving later in the day to give a commencement speech at Arizona State University, while the debate simmers about the nomination of a successor to retiring Justice David Souter.

Asked if the president ran any names of candidates by the senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "No. No names."

Obama's bipartisan consultation came as he zeroed in on a nominee. Souter is part of the court's liberal wing, and his replacement by the new Democratic president is not expected to change the high court's ideological balance. Obama is widely expected to appoint a woman to replace Souter, and he is under pressure from some Latino officials to name the nation's first Hispanic justice.

Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on Judiciary; Leahy; and McConnell. Vice President Joe Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman and veteran of confirmation hearings, also attended.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama and senators reached agreement that the confirmation process "would be civil."

Sessions said that Obama didn't give a timeframe for his decision but indicated he wanted to get it done soon. "My impression was he doesn't want to let it take too long," Sessions told reporters on the White House driveway.

The White House has said Obama will not announce a decision this week. It appears increasingly likely, though, that he will do so before month's end.

One official said none of the senators present at the closed-door White House meeting mentioned the names of any potential nominees.

"The president said we may disagree on how to vote on a nominee, but we can agree on the process, or the tone of it," Sessions said. "I think that's true."

Obama wants his nominee confirmed before the Senate goes on recess for the summer in early August. But the senators would not commit to that.

Reid said the chamber would not be wedded to "arbitrary deadlines" and cautioned about the Judiciary Committee's busy schedule.

"We'll work out a decent schedule," said Leahy, who promised a fair chance for Republicans and Democrats to ask questions during confirmation hearings. "Let's get the nominee first."

An emerging point of debate is Obama's insistence that his nominee be someone who is willing to show "empathy" in making rulings. Some Republicans have balked at the notion, including Sessions, who wrote an op-ed in the Wednesday editions of The Washington Post prodding Obama not to pick someone who would rule based on personal feelings.

Asked whether that matter came up, McConnell said: "We did have a discussion about the importance of following the law, and not acting like a legislator on the bench."

Should Obama make his pick shortly, that would leave June and July for his nominee to get through the vetting process, with voting presumably taking place in the Senate by August. It is possible, however, that the confirmation process would carry on into September.

Leahy said he saw no problem in having a nominee confirmed by the start of the new court session in October.
One can only hope that who ever is putting together the list of names for the president's consideration will realize that nominating Ms. Napolitano will lead to a contentious confirmation process and decide that she's not worth the political capital. Because if she is nominated, when the shouting is over and the votes are counted, she'll be confirmed after she gets away without answering any substantive questions about her qualifications.:rolleyes:

[greenberetTFS]

The latest I've heard this morning on the Wall Street news station this morning (4 AM) that POTUS is seriously looking at an Openly GAY(Lesbian) women that has been put on the short list and that he's not prepared to mention at this time...... :mad: This may come out in the early news later this moring..................;)

GB TFS :munchin

[The Reaper]

The latest I've heard this morning on the Wall Street news station this morning (4 AM) that POTUS is seriously looking at an Openly GAY(Lesbian) women that has been put on the short list and that he's not prepared to mention at this time...... :mad: This may come out in the early news later this moring..................;)

GB TFS :munchin

Well, screw the legal qualifications.

Lets select the most senior judicial personnel in this country based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Yeah, that should result in someone who is emminently qualified to interpret the law.:rolleyes:

TR

[armymom1228]

Well, screw the legal qualifications.

Lets select the most senior judicial personnel in this country based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Yeah, that should result in someone who is emminently qualified to interpret the law.:rolleyes:

TR

Didn't Bush 'select' someone that was not all that qualified that was rejected by the Senate? Let us hope that sane heads prevail when looking at the person.
I seem to remember a couple of Sundays back, that the head of the Judicial Committe made the succint statement that they will "closely look at the nominees qualifications". I truly hope that is an accurate and honest statement.

I truly don't care who's lap some female lawyer type likes to stick her face into, as long as she has the qualifications, and necessary attitude to uphold and interpret the constitution based on impartiality and honesty.

OTOH, once on the bench is there any legal way to get rid of a Fem-Nazi who with an avowed goal to shove her personal adgenda down our throats?:(

Thanks gentlemen for making my already throbbing migraine worse.. :eek::D
This scenario is just to scary for words.... too scary.

[swpa19]

Obama Says He'll Look for 'Empathy' in New Justice

Thats right, lets have a new justice in there that has feeling. A justice that we can all sing Kumbaya with. Oh, the U.S. Constitution, its just an old and out dated concept.

Think Ill get started again on my cabin up in the mountains. The one thats built on a military crest. Life is getting "curiouser and curiouser".

[armymom1228]

Oh, the U.S. Constitution, its just an old and out dated concept.

I seem to recall a statement, during the campaign, attributed to Pres. Obama that he stated "the Constitution is an outdated document" or something similar, meaning the same thing. That part frightens me. It is that same Constitution that got him elected/allowed to run.

[Sigaba]

Source is here (http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82629&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=70). The first part of the report has been snipped.


<<SNIP>>

The new Democrat also said Wednesday that he will ask the eventual nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter what sort of cases he or she would allow to be heard.

"You can't ask the nominee how the nominee is going to decide a case. We all know that. But I think it's a fair question to say, 'What cases will you hear? What cases will you take?' " Specter said.

Four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to grant a writ of certiorari to hear a case. Specter said he was troubled by the current court's refusal to hear several cases dealing with executive authority, which he worried has been expanded too greatly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Specter, who served as the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during confirmation hearings for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, has been relegated to the most junior perch on the committee after switching to the Democratic Party.

But as a centrist Democrat, Specter will remain one of the key votes in the Senate as interest groups on both sides pressure him to support or oppose the eventual nominee. Specter has said he will remain an independent voice in the Senate, and in announcing his party switch affirmed that he still will oppose Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

Only one other Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) — has taken the same position opposing Johnsen.

Specter has been involved in every Supreme Court nomination fight since being elected to the Senate in 1980. His questioning of Robert Bork is credited with helping take down President Reagan's nominee in 1987, and he played a key role in questioning Anita Hill during Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings in 1991.

Specter said aggressive questioning at confirmation hearings, which did not become standard procedure until the 1950s, is warranted.

"I'd let the process take its course. I don't think we have strayed too far. But then I participated in the Bork hearings," Specter said. "There are many in the Senate who take the position that there's not a whole lot of deference given to the president."

Since Bork's nomination collapsed, court nominations have become flashpoints between conservatives and liberals, with groups instantly mobilizing when a vacancy comes about.

"When the hearings are politicized, the whole process is political," Specter said. He said nominees, who routinely meet with key senators before their confirmation hearings, campaign aggressively to win their seats on the court.