Justice Stevens Hires One Clerk Instead of Usual Four:
This is probably a good sign that Justice Stevens is planning to retire at the end of the Term. You never know, of course, as there is still a lot of time. But if he doesn't hire any more clerks, that's a pretty good sign; retired Justices generally have only one law clerk.
I think his retirement is more likely, though, and then Justice Ginsburg will retire the subsequent Term, so as to give Obama three picks. After that, no retirements until health problems force Justice Kennedy, Scalia, or Breyer to retire.
Likewise, Ginsburg is in ill health and won't want her seat filled by a republican, expect her to retire in Obama's first term as well.
None of this is rocket-surgery, folks. Any of the others retiring, well, that would be news.
and why would a clerk want the job?
(I was 13 at the time - he's the only appointment I don't personally remember)
He was appt'd by Ford in the aftermath of Watergate. That's why you didn't see Bork get it even though some push him.
Does anyone know if the numbers actually bear out the idea of such a "practice?" And is the "practice" only adopted by those whose views have not greatly shifted (away from the views of those who appointed them) while on the Court?
Stevens' health or the clerk's?
One notable exception is Byron White. He was appointed by JFK but waited until Clinton to retire, saying he wanted to retire under a Democratic president (party changed, not me , etc etc).
In a recent bio of Earl Warren, it was said that JFK wanted a liberal and a couple choices were vetoed by Warren and RFK as too conservative. He settled on White. After all, JFK did appt Goldberg, a reliable vote for Warren.
It's a sign, but as someone who's anti-death penalty, I wouldn't necessarily call it "good."
Stevesturm:
Retired Justices need to sort their papers and records for archival purposes (and eventual publication), and they are given a professional courtesy of having assistance for the task. Additionally, it's customary for retired Justices to "lend" their clerks to their successors for a term, so it's essentially an extra clerkship slot that someone can have (hence why someone would want the job). And even if they weren't lending clerks to sitting Justices, if I could get a job sitting around with Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens talking about the law and how they viewed it--especially when they feel free to speak candidly on any matter--I'd take that gig in a heartbeat.
For example, Neil Gorsuch, now a judge on the 10th circuit, was hired as a law clerk for Justice White for OT93. Justice White announced his retirement in March 1993, so Gorsuch went to clerk for White as a retired Justice and was farmed out to Kennedy.
Justice Stevens was appointed by Ford, not Nixon.
He also has good reason to stay on the court so that he can be its oldest-serving member. He has about two years left before he passes up Justice Holmes.
Retired Justices can sit on any Federal bench in the land, among other things. They are expected to work. Retiring from the Court is not like retiring from Betty Crocker.
And I'd LOVE to have the job. Clerkships are heavily sought after by law students for many reasons.
If you're right, why would he hire but one clerk?
Douglas was appointed by FDR, retired (under duress, to be sure) under Ford. Marshall was LBJ, retired under George H.W. Bush. Blackmun was appointed by Nixon, retired under Clinton. Add in the fact that we had twenty straight years of Democratic control of the White House from 1933-53, and twelve straight years of Republican control from 1981-93, and I don't know that there's anything of value in such a maxim about retirements, true or not.
I think it far more likely that Justices attempt to retire with strategic regard to ideology, not to party.
I think he would rather retire under a more Obama-friendly Senate in 2010 than wait until 2011 to break some obscure record that only hardcore Supreme Court groupies care about.
I would think both Stevens and Ginsburg would look to get out well ahead of the midterm elections.
Byron White certainly serves as evidence that the practice is real, if not universally followed, and that it is not merely the sort of thing that a "partisan hack" would do.
But I don't see how that's possible unless
1) one retires midterm
2) two vacanies
3) one gets out in a coffin
On that reasoning, we'd have 9 (nine) Carter, Clinton, and Obama appointees right now due to FDR and Truman's 20 years.
Why would JFK even bothered to ask Warren who he should appoint to the court? I don't think there is any evidence that RFK was pushing for a liberal justice (liberal on what subject?) either. At that time, the court had just begun to enter its controversial phase and was not a political issue, other than in the segregated South and certainly not a partisan matter yet.
Goldberg was appointed because JFK needed a Jewish candidate to replace Frankfurter. As the general counsel to the Steelworkers Union, he was able to take care of a second Democratic Party interest group at the same time.
Can't wait to see what further mediocrity Obama drags up for his next nomination.
Ironic isn't it? By tanking Bork and confirming Anthony Kennedy, Ted Kennedy secured the outcome of Heller. Had Bork been confirmed, it would have gone the other way, given his public criticism of the decision.
Goto Amazon, search for Earl Warren, click first link (Justice for All). Use "Look Inside," search for "Byron White." It's in the second result (not the index), the big paragraph in the middle.
Of course, I don't think many liberals would swap Casey, Lawrence, Roper and the rest for Heller.
Conversely, how many conservatives would want the opposite results in those cases? (that is, no abortion rights, death penalty free for all, no gay rights, but no individual gun rights)
I'm quite certain, no matter how mediocre in your view, the nominee will outperform "Houston Lawyer" in any relevant metric you can think of.
You remind me of the fat, balding, middle-aged men who are quick to point out small imperfections of women completely out of their league.
Other than "fidelity to the Constitution above racial solidarity", you mean.
You remind me of the fat, balding, middle-aged men who are quick to point out small imperfections of women completely out of their league.
Someday your prince will come, sweetie.
Except Scalia and Thomas voted alone to allow racial segregation in California prisons. So much for a race blind constitution huh?
Sorry to nitpick, but did you mean that the exception was Harry Blackmun, who was appointed by Nixon but retired under Clinton? If not, I'm confused (since JFK and Clinton were both Democrats).
I'd eagerly swap the opposite results in those cases for no (U.S. constitutional) individual gun rights.
You're suggesting that they were motivated by racial solidarity?
I believe Jeffrey Sutton, now on the 6th Circuit, clerked for a retired Lewis Powell, but was also used by Scalia. Earlier this year, Scalia, answering a question from a student about how he picks his law clerks, mentioned that Sutton was one of his favorite clerks ever, but that he never would have hired him and that he got him from Powell. Scalia said he basically only hires clerks from the best schools because even if they don't educate well, they admit the best students. Sutton, he pointed out rather harshly, went to Ohio State.
Congress was held by Democrats, who had just successfully Borked Bork. They had plenty of reason to hope that such a scenario would continue.
No no. The post I replied to was asking about justices retiring under presidents of the same party they were appointed by, and whether that only happens if the justice didn't "drift." White didn't "drift" but he also wasn't what JFK, RFK, and Warren were expecting.
How about your DangerMouse? Would you trade Heller for Lawrence/Romer, Casey, Roper/Kennedy/...?
Ugh, what I meant by that was, White knew his replacement (Ginsburg) wouldn't be ideologically similar.
Yes. MOre precisely, the ideology of their replacement, based on the president making the appt. For example, if by some freakish accident, one of the Maine twins or Spector (pre-D) were president, would any of the four conservatives retire? Since his replacement would likely be to the left of O'Connor and Kennedy but to the right of Breyer, and likely to drift further left?
Body parts.
One of his last acts as Chief Justice was to swear President Bush into a second term--and, of course, Bush's re-election was not a foregone conclusion. Rehnquist could have chosen to retire in 2002 or 2003 and did not.
By my count 34 people have been appointed to the Supreme Court since 1900 and left the seat walking rather than feet first.
Of those 16 (47%) retired during the presidency of a party opposite the one that appointed them.
Of those 16, without checking what role health played in their retirement/resignation, 11 of them lived long enough that if it was really important to them they could have waited through at least one more election to hope for a president of the correct party (presumably Souter will make 12).
For one thing, Heller was a lawyer-initiated public interest case, and it probably would not have been brought at all if it seemed clear that the Supreme Court was 5-4 against an individual right under the Second Amendment.
For another, setting aside the fact that presidential elections might have gone differently (if Roe v. Wade was overruled, who knows what would have happened... the Dems might have been able to raise more funds by beating the drum about the right to choose, or maybe people would notice that the world was still intact and judicial nominations would fly mostly under the public radar), the subsequent nominations probably would have gone down differently. Someone else might have been selected instead of Souter, or Brennan and/or Marshall might have resolved to hang on until the Clinton years.
Didn't you watch the Back to the Future movies?
Yes. A gay WASP.
gaylesbian WASP.Fixed.
Wait, aren't lesbians gay?
If Stevens were to announce his retirement effective the end of the current term, when might we expect to know Obama's choice and have a confirmation vote by the Senate? Would Obama's choice come from the pool he that Sotomayer was in, or would the White House be looking at people they didn't consider for the first vacancy?
Sorry to shatter your stereotype, but lesbians, like the rest of us, are sometimes gay, sometimes sad, and often somewhere in-between.
Well yes. There's only 17 Democrats up for re-election, Republicans would need to win 11 (Biden tiebreaker) to regain the Senator. I'm assuming, of course, by "greater" you mean majority, not 60.
Huh. If I had breasts and was attracted to them I'd be gay all the time.
Ted Kennedy was far more conservative than Brennan.
Nick
"I couldn't be a woman because I'd play with my breasts all day."
Steve Martin
from LA Story:
Telling the truth about Bork dragged the process into the gutter? We need more truth, not less, in the confirmation process.
There are plenty of alternative possibilities. Perhaps he is only taking on a mild case load, being an old man. Maybe he couldn't find anyone who tickled his fancy. Maybe he thought he'd save us taxpayers some money? I don't know why he'd only hire one clerk--but I'd bet money that he's on the Court for a while yet, and that Ginsburg will be gone before him.
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.