Former Justice Stevens: Supreme Court Justices Should Consider Politics in Retirement Decisions

Wall Street Journal ^ | April 20, 2014 | By Amy Harder

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Sunday that politics should be a factor in justices’ decisions on when to step down from the nation’s highest bench.

“It’s an appropriate thing to think about,” Mr. Stevens said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “If you’re interested in the job and in the kind of work that’s done, you have to have an interest in who’s going to fill your shoes.”

Some liberal experts have pressed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at 81 is the oldest sitting justice on the court and has had health issues, to step down this summer to ensure President Barack Obama can appoint a Democratic justice who can be confirmed by a Democratically-controlled Senate before November’s midterm elections.

[Zathras]

Obama wants Holder on the Court.
This has been his plan since 2008

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[BobL]

“Obama wants Holder on the Court.
This has been his plan since 2008”

That I believe. He’s DESPERATELY trying to get Ginsberg off the Court, before it’s too late - especially with the Senate set to go Republican.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The Senate will rubber stamp ANY nominee of Obama’s and it wont matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

[KarlInOhio]

Stay health Ruth. I want you to collapse at President Cruz’s inauguration.

[Truth29]

The days when the courts rule important cases on the law and not ideology are long past. Everything is politics now and we all need to treat it as war like the Rats do as they live and breathe 24 hours a day.

[Bernard Marx]

Silly me! I know it's naïve in today's cynical world but I was taught in my civics classes long ago that the SCOTUS and judges in general should remain apolitical. Their role is to apply the law objectively, not in a partisan way.

I know that hasn't been the case historically. But it's very wrong to see partisan politics blatantly advocated by a former justice.

[headstamp 2]

This why he hasn’t gotten rid of him.

[rockrr]

Well at least he was candid enough to shred any pretense of objectivity.

[Jim Noble]

Do you know how many Republicans voted against Ginsburg?

[KC_Conspirator]

I do believe that too...they will rubber stamp any nominee. Otherwise, it would be ray-sis.

[no-to-illegals]

Am growing tired of the constant 5-4 decisions where the Constitution is being upheld by only one vote in nearly all decisions. Soon expect the trend, eventually, to be 5-4 decisions where the Constitution and the Rule of Law is not being upheld. Imagine once it begins; 5-4 rulings against the Constitution and the Rule of Law the trickle will become a flood and know not what will be seen by Generations to come in those days. Actually do have an idea what will come once the trickle becomes a flood and the Constitution and the Rule of Law is ruled against repeatedly but is for another day's post.

Happy Easter Day and Happy Passover Remembrance, Everyone.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Ginsburg was confirmed by something like 92-3 if I recall correctly.

Even though she had a major background as legal counsel for the ACLU, her nomination was not strongly challenged by anyone at the time.

[VerySadAmerican]

Ditto. McCain will say “Holder is a good man and will not be bad for the country.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a republican president nominate Holder.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Sometimes I think I can’t be shocked by things.

But I must say, I was shocked to hear that liberals want Ginsburg to step down because they want Obama to appoint a younger liberal.

What’s with these liberals? Ruth can’t die off fast enough for them? They are that afraid that a radical liberal can’t be confirmed by the Senate with more Republicans after November, or God forbid, have that replacement appointed by a Republican president in the future?? What are they really saying?

[Jim Noble]

At the time that all Republicans save 3 voted to confirm her, she was the most radical and least qualified nominee in history.

[Hulka]

Hang on RBG. . .wait until a republican president. . .hold on. Nap all you want. . .just stick around til then.

[Hulka]

Being female provides a cloak of protection that would not fit for WM nominations, no matter the legal and ‘wise WM’ resume.

[tanknetter]

So confirmation hearings for Holder and a Senate vote leading into the midterms?

Expect any GOP criticism of him to be overblown and presented as racism in order to drive up Dem base turnout. And if Republicans don’t go after him the Conservative base gets pissed and stays home. All emphasis on Obamacare gets knocked out of the political equation.

Desperation scenario by the Dems to keep the Senate. But one with an excellent chance of working.

Stevens is increasingly proving that he’s a complete a**. This isn’t talking about political considerations to keep the SCOTUS seat Democrat/Liberal: it’s about politicizing the nomination/confirmation process to swing an election in another BRANCH.