Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama and senators to confer about court opening

By Robert Barnes
President Obama will invite Democratic and Republican Senate leaders to the White House next week to discuss the Supreme Court opening created by Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement.

The president will meet on April 21 at the White House with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) The top two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (Ala.) have also been invited.

The White House is working from a list of about 10 possible replacements for Stevens, the current court's oldest and longest-serving member, and the leader of the court's liberal wing. He has said he will retire after the court finishes its work, which is usually at the end of June.

The same four met with Obama last year, before he chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter.

By Robert Barnes  |  April 13, 2010; 1:19 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Michelle Obama makes unannounced visit to Haiti
Next: Obama to attend funeral for Polish president Sunday in Krakow

Comments

How about someone with political experience, who has been required to implement court decisions,and also perhaps actually appointed judges themselves , like Jenifer Granholm or Evan Bayh ? Would Bayh´s colleagues, who know he is a moderate and consensus-builder , Sen. Lugar included, really try to block him for partisan reasons ?

Posted by: rspenceroliver | April 18, 2010 4:42 AM | Report abuse

How about someone with political experience, who has been required to implement court decisions,and also perhaps actually appointed judges themselves , like Jenifer Granholm or Evan Bayh ? Would Bayh´s colleagues, who know he is a moderate and consensus-builder , Sen. Lugar included, really try to block him for partisan reasons ?

Posted by: rspenceroliver | April 18, 2010 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Thinking like a lunatic-left d-crat socialist: "Likely to put emphasis on a justice who would bring a fight-for-the-little-guy sensibility to the job"

Thinking like a pro-constitutional democracy patriotic American: SCOTUS justices should focus on interpreting the law and the constitution as the originators intended, with the US Constitution positioned as the ultimate deciding document..

Yes, Virginia, d-crat socialists are NOT the same as patriotic Americans.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | April 13, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

The government already has the right to redistribute wealth through its the collection of taxes. Most of time the government transfers wealth from the poorest to the richest (aka the Bush/Republican tax cuts in 2001/2002).

That is why we have the largest inequity in the distribution of wealth in America than anywhere else in the civilized world.

Of course the Republicans would never admit this. You would have to have some economic background to be able to read the numerous studies that have established this.

But if the transfer ever goes the other way, the of course the Republicans would scream 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH'.

This is like the hypocritical Republic minority in our country looks at activism in judges. It is fine to overthrow the will of the elected branches as well as decades of precedent in favor of extremist reading of the constitution for conservative issues, but doing so for liberal issues are inherently evil.

I am actually in favor of activist judges. But I don't have the hypocrisy to suggest that extreme interpretations supporting that activism are ever good. Whither they be for liberal or conservative issues.

Posted by: reussere | April 13, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

One wonders what good will come out of a meeting with leaders whose policy is to just say "NO"! President should just go over their heads and reach the ordinary people of this nation - people who put him in the Whitehouse>

Posted by: Newsafari | April 13, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

So ... "ordinary people" are now going to be represented on the highest court in the land.

What does that mean can someone tell me ?

Is it going to be a court that rules for eminent domain as this court has ?

To me what the "ordinary people" of the land need in the court is a Justice that will side with Individual Rights.

Not someone that will support the greater good at the expense of individual rights.

The smallest minority is not the gay and lesbian community, or the black community or Hispanics or Women ...

No the smallest minority is the Individual.

ANd what we need is a court that does not violate by rationalizing using the "we are our brother's keeper" ideology.

Freedom is not rallying behind the Flag ...
freedom is action the protects individuals ...
in the end the Civil Rights are about individual rights ... we are only fooled into thinking we are working on getting a group of folks the rights they deserve...

What we fight for when we fight for civil rights is the right of the individual.

So Mr. President ... are you with us or against us ? Are you for individual rights or are you your brother's keeper ?

rhetorical of course, as we know that the globalism we have seen was the stepping stone (as a result of not letting a financial crisis go to waste) to Global Governance.

For the greater good I know ... at the expense of individual rights.


Posted by: AmericanSpirit | April 13, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Won't do any good. THEY WILL STILL WHINE LIKE THE 3 year olds that they are that they didn't take into consideration their LOSER CANDIDATES.

I am still for a cross-dressing, gay, asian guy from San Francisco. Couldn't be any more worse than most of the CLOWNS THE CHIMP (BUSH) nominated.

Posted by: racerdoc | April 13, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Wait until the GOP learns that Tina Fey is on Obama's short list. This should be exciting. .......


http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/04/12/obama-to-appoint-tina-fey-to-supreme-court/

Posted by: glclark4750 | April 13, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans will only accept an activist judge who sees an implicit right in the constitution for corporations to buy elections, disseminate unlimited corporate propaganda and inevitably give corporations a right to vote. Probably under the guise of the "first amendment" since corporations are now considered people thanks to existing conservative activist judges.
------
Corporations have MORE rights then people, because they can "merge" with each other legally, even though certain groups of people aren't allowed to get married.

Posted by: Independent4tw | April 13, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans will only accept an activist judge who sees an implicit right in the constitution for corporations to buy elections, disseminate unlimited corporate propaganda and inevitably give corporations a right to vote. Probably under the guise of the "first amendment" since corporations are now considered people thanks to existing conservative activist judges.

Posted by: paulflorez | April 13, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Once again the President thinks negotiating with the right wing will somehow win him favor. It won't; in fact they'll use everything he says against him. All of the things that we need to do in this country -- build an economy for the future, shore up the infrastructure, restore the public schools and public health systems, and most of all, slow global warming -- are in serious jeopardy. We can't afford another swing vote on the Supreme Court. Look what they just did with their fascist -- literally -- valentine to big business. No independent will have a chance anymore. Enough, Mr. Obama. It's hardball we're playing.

Posted by: My1Shkin | April 13, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I assume the President will be looking for someone who sees an implicit right in the constitution for the goverment to redistribute wealth? Probably in the "commerce clause"?

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | April 13, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, the Troglodytes only know the word NO!

The word "yes" evidently too difficult for them to comprehend. It has three letters.

Posted by: chamateddy | April 13, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

So are we to assume that Orrin Hatch will demand from the president that Hillary get the nomination ASAP lest he filibuster?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 13, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company