Souter Retiring:

NBC News is reporting that Justice David Souter is, in fact, planning to retire, either at the end of this term or when his successor is confirmed.

UPDATE: More from the AP:

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 familiar with his plans said Thursday night.

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

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.

SECOND UPDATE: From the NYT:

Two friends of Justice Souter, 69, said Thursday night that he had often spoken privately of his intentions to be the court's first retirement if Mr. Obama won the election last fall. He has told friends that he looked forward to returning to his native New Hampshire while he was still able to enjoy climbing mountains and other outdoor activities.

Volokh Groupie:
I've figured it out. Specter's defection to the democrats was actually a stealth attempt to make it easier for republicans to filibuster Obama's first nominee.

Arlen Sneaky Plan
4.30.2009 11:03pm
A Law Dawg:
As I mentioned in another thread, is it coincidence that this is announced the day after Specter produces vote #60?
4.30.2009 11:03pm
Yuiop:
#60? Did Franken win?!
4.30.2009 11:20pm
Volokh Groupie:
Franken's won, its just down to when Norm will stop suing.
4.30.2009 11:22pm
J. Aldridge:
Scoutie won't be missed.
4.30.2009 11:23pm
Jay:
ALD-- Probably. Do you really think every Republican senator was going to hold together to filibuster one of the expected Obama nominees anyway?
4.30.2009 11:23pm
Houston Lawyer:
Good riddance. It will be interesting to see how many litmus tests that Obama applies to his successor. Minority-female-transgendered ... So many interest groups to please and only one spot to fill.
4.30.2009 11:24pm
J. Aldridge:
Franken's won, its just down to when Norm will stop suing.

Not until every vote is counted!
4.30.2009 11:24pm
taney71:
Can you be a female transgendered?
4.30.2009 11:25pm
justme:
My guess is Sotomayor will get the nod.
4.30.2009 11:26pm
J.R.L.:
I assume Obama will have to pick someone that Republican president would have picked to "maintain the balance."
4.30.2009 11:28pm
J.R.L.:
My guess is Sotomayor will get the nod.

The world record high jumper?
4.30.2009 11:32pm
Yuiop:
Posner or Easterbrook would be nice.
4.30.2009 11:33pm
mistermark:
Two words. Orin F***ing Kerr. Okay, those are three words. But the movement starts here.
4.30.2009 11:37pm
AJK:

Posner or Easterbrook would be nice.



A man can dream.
4.30.2009 11:38pm
PlugInMonster:
Sarah Palin.
4.30.2009 11:38pm
Volokh Groupie:
@JRL

Sotomayor might fit the bill.


So what's the shortlist VC bloggers?

Kagan/Wood/Sotomayor/Strossen/Hillary?


I think Randy and Orin should declare themselves eligible for nomination too, kind of like the draft.
4.30.2009 11:39pm
taney71:
Edith Jones.
4.30.2009 11:39pm
ll (mail):

Posner or Easterbrook would be nice.


That's hallucination.
4.30.2009 11:39pm
Volokh Groupie:

Sarah Palin.



I just Cartmanesquely shot milk out my nose w/o even drinking any!
4.30.2009 11:42pm
J. Aldridge:

Posner or Easterbrook would be nice.

James Madison or George Washington would be great. But somehow I don't see a a Democrat controlled judiciary ever approving them in the 21st century.
4.30.2009 11:47pm
Volokh Groupie:


James Madison or George Washington would be great. But somehow I don't see a a Democrat controlled judiciary ever approving them in the 21st century.


Indeed, the rigor mortis would make for awkward oral arguments.
4.30.2009 11:51pm
Kelly (mail):
Wow, that's a shock, if not a complete surprise. A couple of things to ponder:

- Does Souter wait until the end of the term to make it official? The lack of clerks is obviously a big sign, and NPR must have heard something concrete from someone to break the story, but I could see Souter holding back the formal announcement for tradition's sake.

- On a related point, how long does Obama wait to name a successor? Does he wait until there are 60 Dems in the Senate, or does he try to at least get the ball rolling before then?

- What happens to the Judiciary Committee now that Specter has flipped? When does the GOP get a new ranking member and what could the minority members do to potentially block a nominee?

- How liberal does Obama go with the replacement? Straight up ideologue or someone that will get at least some, if not many, Republican votes? He's probably popular enough and he likely has the votes to get anyone he wants right now, but he may not want to spend the political capital necessary to get a controversial nominee through.

It should be an interesting Friday...
4.30.2009 11:52pm
Sarcastro (www):
I'ma go with MartyA's long-held theory and say it's gonna be Specter.
4.30.2009 11:53pm
MarkField (mail):

James Madison or George Washington would be great. But somehow I don't see a a Democrat controlled judiciary ever approving them in the 21st century.


The Republicans would filibuster them because they were anti-torture.
5.1.2009 12:05am
Melancton Smith:


James Madison or George Washington would be great. But somehow I don't see a a Democrat controlled judiciary ever approving them in the 21st century.



Indeed, the rigor mortis would make for awkward oral arguments.


They'd still ask more questions than Justice Thomas.
5.1.2009 12:06am
J. Aldridge:
Indeed, the rigor mortis would make for awkward oral arguments.

Roberts can claim they are just snoozing.
5.1.2009 12:16am
geokstr (mail):

taney71:
Can you be a female transgendered?

It's been done, but the nano-battery technology to power the micro-pump still leaves much to be desired.
5.1.2009 8:19am
ASlyJD (mail):
Is this a voice of experience talking? :)
5.1.2009 8:58am
geokstr (mail):

ASlyJD (mail):
Is this a voice of experience talking? :)

No, why? Thinking about trying it?
5.1.2009 9:17am
Steve P. (mail):
I'ma go with MartyA's long-held theory and say it's gonna be Specter.

And here's a link to go along with that. In case anyone was confused.
5.1.2009 12:22pm
Andrew G:
"he had often spoken privately of his intentions to be the court's first retirement if Mr. Obama won the election last fall."

How charming. For nineteen years he got to be on the highest tribunal of Constitutional interpretation courtesy of a Republican president, but he doesn't want to retire unless a Democrat is in office. Even a moderate Republican like McCain facing a Democrat-dominated Senate isn't good enough. So much for being a non-partisan Justice.
5.1.2009 4:57pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.