Gird your loins: Justice Stevens announces summer retirement plans

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 9, 2010 10:35 AM

It’s Retirement Friday! On the heels of Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak’s retirement plans, SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens confirms swirling rumors of his upcoming retirement this summer. News breaking on the wires and Twitter. AP:

Stevens says he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July.

His announcement Friday in Washington had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday.

Stevens began signaling a possible retirement last summer when he hired just one of his usual complement of four law clerks for the next court term. He acknowledged in several interviews that he was contemplating stepping down and would certainly do so during Obama’s presidency.

The timing of his announcement leaves ample time for the White House to settle on a successor and Senate Democrats, who control 59 votes, to conduct confirmation hearings and a vote. Republicans have not ruled out an attempt to delay confirmation.

The leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59.

The Left is preparing for a “pitched battle.”

Background on Kagan and Wood here.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Supreme Court

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #1
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:38 am, b-cat said:

    Which agent of Satan will Obama appoint? What manner of poison does he already have waiting in the wings? No good ever comes of this president.

  2. #2
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:41 am, DBNinKY said:

    SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens confirms swirling rumors of his upcoming retirement this summer.

    I wonder if the November elections have anything to do with his summer retirement?

  3. #3
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:42 am, TigerLady said:

    This is like being on a roller coaster going through Tunnel of the House of Horrors. The only difference is that we may not come out alive at the end of the tunnel.
    We definitely won’t come out with our beloved America alive as we know it. God help us!

  4. #4
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:43 am, stillontheroad said:

    You can bet he/she/it will be a follower of redistribution, reparations and misinterpretation of the Constitution as well as a cheer leader for using EU laws to supplant our own.

  5. #5
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am, babiesgrandma said:

    Wonder if he/she/it will be another Wise Latina?

  6. #6
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:53 am, graysonret said:

    So what was in the deal for Stevens to retire now? Obama won’t stop until he has all power lodged in marxism.

  7. #7
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:56 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Kevin Lomax: “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”, is that it?
    John Milton: Why not? I’m here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I’ve nurtured every sensation man’s been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections, I’m a fan of man! I’m a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

  8. #8
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    John Milton: And as we’re straddling from one deal to the next, who’s got his eye on the planet, as the air thickens, the water sours, and even the bees’ honey takes on the metallic taste of radioactivity? And it just keeps coming, faster and faster. There’s no chance to think, to prepare; it’s buy futures, sell futures, when there is no future.

  9. #9
    On April 9th, 2010 at 10:59 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Kevin Lomax: What are you?
    John Milton: Oh, I have so many names…
    Kevin Lomax: Satan.
    John Milton: Call me Dad.

  10. #10
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am, RedDog said:

    Big surprise. Obviously he told BO of this long ago. Does this mean Goodwin Liu skips Go and heads straight to SCOTUS? Good grief that place will be a circus.

  11. #11
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    John Milton: Lawyers are the devil’s ministry.

    —————————————-

    John Milton: Now with this? Now that you’re down? I’d get ready for one of those, Class-A, New York-style pigf!@#s.

  12. #12
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am, hawkeye54 said:

    The Left is preparing for a “pitched battle.”

    And Republican Leadership may talk tough at first, but no doubt in the end emulate “Brave Sir Robin”.

    When it comes to pitched battle, the GOP leadership often wilts when the Left so much as pitches a wiffle ball.

  13. #13
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am, dcbprime said:

    Too bad he wouldn’t even consider picking me for the office.

    I’m not qualified, so that means I am imminently qualified, right?

  14. #14
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am, hawkeye54 said:

    Good grief that place will be a circus.

    Why not? The WH already is – TEH ONE is the nation’s carnival midway pitchman and Emanual is the circus ringmaster.

  15. #15
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am, wildcat84 said:

    GOP, filibuster it.

    Don’t allow Obama to seat another justice until after the elections in November.

  16. #16
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am, nbarry said:

    Justice Stevens is the last Protestant on the Court. Let’s see if Obama creates a Court that looks like America.

  17. #17
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am, Bruce said:

    For baby-killing immoral unprincipled lying reprobate pervert Bart Stupak’s retirement: HOORAY! Kudos to the Tea Party Express for putting this creep out of business… just wait and see what kind of cushy government position he gets in return for his sellout.

    For Stevens… Well, we can’t be sad to see an anti American subversive leave the court. The only question is what kind of wise (as in wise Latina) racist bigotted left-wing communist ignorant fool Lindsey Graham and Barry Soetoro will put on the court to replace him. I GUARANTEE that whoever it is will be so evil, so scary, that we will wish we lived in Trinidad.

  18. #18
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:28 am, iamsaved said:

    Obama will nominate someone of the most liberal bent he can find – probably an avowed communist. He’ll chose anyone he can give an “in your face” to the conservatives.

    Wonder if Patrick Leahy will ask Obama to submit someone who is not so controversial as he did so often to Bush? I doubt it. More hypocrisy by the Dems.

  19. #19
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:36 am, madshark said:

    How is it that two liberal Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican Presidents (Stevens by Ford and Soutar by Bush I)??

    If I had my way, I’d establish an 18 year term for Supreme Court justices so that every two years one of the nine justices is replaced, and every President would have the opportunity of nominating two Justices during his term (which is looks like Obama is getting to do, anyway). I’d also set 80 years old as a mandatory retirement age for justices.

  20. #20
    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:43 am, rightisright said:

    this retirement may well provide the litmus test we conservatives want in order to judge which Republican is worth their salt now we are getting down to the end of the game.
    I want to see every Republican senator on the judicial committee to fight tooth and nail to rebuke and filibuster everyone of the usurper’s nominees. I want to see them fight just as hard as the dems fought against Bork, Estrada and any other nominee presented by a Republican president.
    This is what saving the country is all about, it’s the damn fight and how much fight our senators have. I don’t was to see some jelly bellied senator more worried about senatorial “comity” than they do about their own country.
    Show some Balls you spineless, whimps.

  21. #21
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:05 pm, v015eyjd said:

    I thought there was a courtesy of retiring when a President of the same party was in Office? So if you were appointed by a Republican President, you retired (if possible) when another Republican President was in office. What happened to that?

  22. #22
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:18 pm, Rorschach said:

    FILIBUSTER! If we’re lucky we’ll manage to get someone somewhat moderate instead of a dyed in the wool maoist because he’ll know that someone that extreme will never make it through.

    My questions are, will Obama make a recess Appointment in the interim? and if so, how leftist will that appointment be? and does the court meet in the summer anyway? I don’t think it does, so a recess appointment might make no difference anyway except for emergency death row appeals and such.

  23. #23
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:19 pm, Rorschach said:

    v015eyjd, you do realize that Stevens is just about the most liberal member of the court there is don’t you?

  24. #24
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:21 pm, DBNinKY said:

    How is it that two liberal Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican Presidents (Stevens by Ford and Soutar by Bush I)??

    The perfect question – and one which proves that while Republicans earnestly examine a judicial nominee’s qualifications, Democrats are only interested in applying a leftist-litmus test.

  25. #25
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:24 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    The new Supreme Court Justice nominee will be whoever Rahm Emmanuel says it will be.

  26. #26
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:32 pm, MacEamonn said:

    Even if “The One” appoints another “screaming liberal” to replace Stevens will we see much of a change?

  27. #27
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:36 pm, Mulligan said:

    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am, hawkeye54 said:

    Republican Leadership may talk tough at first, but no doubt in the end emulate “Brave Sir Robin”.

    When it comes to pitched battle, the GOP leadership often wilts when the Left so much as pitches a wiffle ball.

    My sentiments exactly.

  28. #28
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:41 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Yes indeed our Constitution dismissing president will be able to replace an old Constitution dismissing judge with a young Constitution dismissing judge and continue the dismantling rule of law in favor of rule by men. This Constitution by all those slave holding members of the dead white male patriarchy do not apply to these superior types of the modern era does it?

    My first and great hate of the Progressive/Liberal is their referring to Brown v Board of Education as the fruit of an activist court. Actually the ruling it overturned, Plessy v Ferguson, was the activist ruling and far from constitutional. The stating of Brown v Board of Education was activist only because Earl Warren was one of the laziest men to ever sit on the court.

    Brown v Board of Education was pivotal point in my life-my brother and I were attending the Booker T Washington School for Colored Children. Blacks, Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese and Hottentots(who ever they were) were Colored. My brother and I continued until junior high but our brother and sisters started out at the neighborhood school. Prior to Brown v Board of Education after elementary school we could NOT attend the local high school but if we could arrange transportation we could go to the colored high school in Phoenix. The once black Warren Livingston became non black when it was discovered he was a great football player.

    I do hate to talk race-I fear coming across as whining and that I do not wish to do. But to this day my family holds dear that white member of the male patriarchy Barry Goldwater. Four years before Brown v Board of Education as member of the city council of Phoenix 1949-1952 HE sponsored the rules ending Separate but Equal in Phoenix which eventually went state wide. The Senator only opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it applied to private property: “Governments may not act like XXXXXXs-individuals may“.

    But then these XXXXXXs (thanks Barry) who made such a deal out of HATE had no problem making snide remarks about the Senator’s Jewish father in the 1964 Presidential race. Super Liberal of PBS Bill Moyers still does.

    Sermon over.

  29. #29
    On April 9th, 2010 at 12:44 pm, TigerLady said:

    How is it that two liberal Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican Presidents (Stevens by Ford and Soutar by Bush I)??

    Reaching across the aisle?

  30. #30
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    GOP, filibuster it.

    We all should expect nothing less!

  31. #31
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:13 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    No question on what kind of SCOTUS Justice Comrade Obama (PBUH) will appoint. Another “living” Constitution “wise” Latina type. It won’t change much now–but just wait until one of the five conservative Justices retires. It will be Katy Bar the Door 5-4 decisions against our rights then.
    ***
    The new Justice should be impartial and honest–and should have good legal experience in our federal court systems. We have been badly served by some of the past picks. Witness the clown who decided that the Black Slave Dred Scott was not a person–he was a piece of property that could be owned by another man! Kindov like a cow.
    ***
    I want someone who will do the right thing for all of us–not another agenda driven person. The conservatives and rational people in the Senate should stand up and fight for this type of person–with the filibuster. Force the Messiah to make a better pick than the “wise” Latina. Do it for our country’s future.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

  32. #32
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:19 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    This is a post about the US Supreme Court…
    the same Court that in Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark stated:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens…”

    Obama does not fit that definition.
    He is not eligible to be President regardless of his place of birth.

    An interesting thing about Justice Stevens’ retirement is that his replacement will likely be on the Court before a Quo Warranto case challenging Obama’s (in)eligibility is heard by the D.C. District Court and/or appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If/when a Quo Warranto case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, I expect any Justice who was nominated by Obama to recuse themselves, since there would be a clear conflict of interest… their own self-interest in retaining their seat on the Court would interfere with them being objective about Obama’s (in)eligibility.

    So, with two Justices having to recuse themselves, a majority of the 7 remaining Justices would be 4.

    If/when the Supreme Court rules that Obama was never qualified to hold the office of President, then every person nominated by Obama will have to step down and be replaced, and every document signed by Obama will be illegitimate (including ObamaCare).

    If that court decision comes after January 2013, those vacancies on the Supreme Court will be filled with Justices nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

  33. #33
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:22 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    The leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59.

    Well Stalin is dead, but I think Chavez could be talked into it.

  34. #34
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    GOP, filibuster it.

    We all should expect nothing less!

    In general, I don’t support the use of the filibuster to raise the threshold of “consent” from 50 votes to 60 votes. However, the Democrats so abused this during Bush’s Presidency, and prevented the rule change to prohibit judicial filibusters, that we are strongly tempted to try to use “two wrongs” to “make a right”…

    If the GOP filibusters Obama’s judicial nominations, the Democratic Socialists may try to implement the implement the rule change to prohibit judicial filibusters. In the long run, that is the right thing to do, and will benefit us later.

  35. #35
    On April 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    …may try to implement the implement the rule change…

    Glitch in the Matrix.

  36. #36
    On April 9th, 2010 at 2:13 pm, vargas said:

    Bruce,

    Justice Stevens is a WWII veteran and has served this country in one form or another for close to 50 years.

    Share with us what you’ve done for America that qualifies you to sneer at him as anti-American?

  37. #37
    On April 9th, 2010 at 2:36 pm, letget said:

    If you are a praying person, please pray for the R’s health on the court. Ginsburg(sp) is said to be next to retire, but she is a d so another d would still not crater our country.
    L

  38. #38
    On April 9th, 2010 at 2:39 pm, Rorschach said:

    On April 9th, 2010 at 2:13 pm, vargas said:

    Bruce,

    Justice Stevens is a WWII veteran and has served this country in one form or another for close to 50 years.

    Share with us what you’ve done for America that qualifies you to sneer at him as anti-American?

    Upheld the rule of law?
    Acknowledged the US Constitution?

  39. #39
    On April 9th, 2010 at 2:56 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    My father was a WW II vet. Millions were. And your point? Stevens is a Constitution dismissing leftist who openly chose rule by men over rule of law. I doubt he thinks so but Justice Stevens was on the wrong side. He is far closer to Hitler and Mussolini than Jefferson or Adams. Justice Stevens would be quite comfortable with the Nuremberg Laws-they are their own higher authority.

  40. #40
    On April 9th, 2010 at 3:26 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    We’ve had several Republican-appointed justices that started voting Liberal once on the court. JUST ONCE, can we have a Dem-appointed justice that starts voting Conservative?!
    Please!!!

  41. #41
    On April 9th, 2010 at 3:29 pm, Big Hammer and Anvil said:

    Now is the time to dump Bloviating Biden from Obammy’s ticket.

    I fear that if the current veep is shuffled off to the sumpremes, he will be replaced with some other far left looney (Trotsky for example).

  42. #42
    On April 9th, 2010 at 3:59 pm, flaming_o said:

    On April 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am, nbarry said:

    Let’s see if Obama creates a Court that looks like America.

    Truth is, President Obama doesn’t care if the Supreme Court looks like America. How the Court “looks” is pure Leftist smokescreen. What he absolutely does not want is for the Court to “think” like America. He’ll do whatever he can to push the court toward burying the Constitution and thinking like the world.

  43. #43
    On April 9th, 2010 at 4:45 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    This is Stevens looking at the current political climate and realizing that if he doesn’t retire in time for Obummer to get a replacement confirmed before the November elections, he won’t be able to push through a radical Leftist.

  44. #44
    On April 9th, 2010 at 5:05 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Two years ago, back on HotAir.com, a commenter ridiculed me for saying that the most important issue in the 2008 election was the Supreme Court, because the winner would likely nominate 3 or more Justices. (5 of the 9 Justices were age 68 or older at that time, and that was 2 years ago).
    The commenter said it would only be one nomination, two tops.

    This is already departure #2, and many people think Ginsberg will leave the court before Obama leaves office.

    I don’t exactly trust John McCain, but at least he gave lip service to nominating more Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

    If Obama were actually Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and make these nominations, I would be more concerned. But, he’s not eligible, so I’m not worried. Any Justice he gets on the court is illegitimate, and will have to be either re-nominated or replaced when an eligible person becomes President.

  45. #45
    On April 9th, 2010 at 5:12 pm, sbw999 said:

    I understand that Hugo Chavez has announced his availability to Obama.

  46. #46
    On April 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm, Intrepid Dad said:

    I expect Obama to nominate a consensus candidate. Isn’t that what the liberals insisted on under President Bush?

  47. #47
    On April 9th, 2010 at 7:40 pm, Mach1Duck said:

    I hear that our Home Land Security Secretary is on the short list for this position. Not bad for a person that cannot do the job, “Promote them up”, works everytime.

  48. #48
    On April 9th, 2010 at 8:51 pm, bjc said:

    *I’m guessing P-BO will end up nominating a woman somewhat left of Stevens; In that case, the Senate GOP needs to “Bork” her, and ask that he nominate a more centrist candidate; They need to stand their ground on this, and not go RINO ala McCain/Grahamnesty!

  49. #49
    On April 11th, 2010 at 7:11 pm, simon77047 said:

    The constitution only works when it benefits the ruling class; otherwise, it is meaning less. Commerce clause case in point.

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Babalu Blog

» Greece is Burning
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook