"Stevens Retires".
Stevens retires
Justice John Paul Stevens ended rampant speculation with his announcement Friday afternoon that he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Let the long, hot summer begin.
It is unfortunate that the esteemed juror is not leaving the high court in a time and atmosphere similar to that which produced him. Though Mr. Stevens is now considered to be one of the most liberal justices on the bench, he was appointed by President Gerald Ford, a conservative Republican, whose only qualification was that his nominee be the best legal mind he could find.
One could say history proved he found that in Justice Stevens, who has brought honor to the robe, the bench and the institution — especially in his ability to forge majority opinions and in his stirring minority dissents. By the time he retires, at age 90, he will be the fourth-longest-serving justice in court history.
President Obama, who will nominate a successor to be approved by the U.S. Senate, should aim to find someone who will admire and emulate the remarkable judicial legacy of Justice Stevens.
For its part, the Senate should do its due diligence in questioning the nominee during confirmation hearings, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must ensure that his “party of no” doesn't disrespect the process or the nominee by allowing the toxic partisanship that has contaminated everything else in Congress to tarnish this, too.
It was Justice Stevens who, in two of his most famous and most recent dissents, to majority decisions that many consider assaults on American democracy, remarked on what he considered the corrosive effects partisanship had on his own profession.
In his blistering December 2000 dissent to Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court majority “effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent,” Justice Stevens wrote, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
In his January 2010 dissent to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , in which the Supreme Court majority declared corporations citizens and legally unbuttoned their pocketbooks so they could express their political speech, Justice Stevens wrote, “The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”
It is impossible to imagine a replacement who would better serve the nation or the Constitution than Justice John Paul Stevens. But for the good of the country, Mr. Obama must try.
Justice John Paul Stevens ended rampant speculation with his announcement Friday afternoon that he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Let the long, hot summer begin.
It is unfortunate that the esteemed juror is not leaving the high court in a time and atmosphere similar to that which produced him. Though Mr. Stevens is now considered to be one of the most liberal justices on the bench, he was appointed by President Gerald Ford, a conservative Republican, whose only qualification was that his nominee be the best legal mind he could find.
One could say history proved he found that in Justice Stevens, who has brought honor to the robe, the bench and the institution — especially in his ability to forge majority opinions and in his stirring minority dissents. By the time he retires, at age 90, he will be the fourth-longest-serving justice in court history.
President Obama, who will nominate a successor to be approved by the U.S. Senate, should aim to find someone who will admire and emulate the remarkable judicial legacy of Justice Stevens.
For its part, the Senate should do its due diligence in questioning the nominee during confirmation hearings, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must ensure that his “party of no” doesn't disrespect the process or the nominee by allowing the toxic partisanship that has contaminated everything else in Congress to tarnish this, too.
It was Justice Stevens who, in two of his most famous and most recent dissents, to majority decisions that many consider assaults on American democracy, remarked on what he considered the corrosive effects partisanship had on his own profession.
In his blistering December 2000 dissent to Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court majority “effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent,” Justice Stevens wrote, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
In his January 2010 dissent to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , in which the Supreme Court majority declared corporations citizens and legally unbuttoned their pocketbooks so they could express their political speech, Justice Stevens wrote, “The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”
It is impossible to imagine a replacement who would better serve the nation or the Constitution than Justice John Paul Stevens. But for the good of the country, Mr. Obama must try.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home