Justice David Souter

[Joe_in_RP]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice David Souter is planning to retire after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court, but his departure is unlikely to change its conservative-liberal split.

President Barack Obama's first pick for the high court is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee, much like Souter.

The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. The retirement is likely to take effect only once a successor is confirmed.

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

Souter had no comment Thursday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court's only female justice.

--------------------

Is US Supreme Court Justice David Souter Jewish?

No, US Supreme Court Justice David Souter is not a Jew. He is an Episcopalian.

According to published reports he plans now to retire from the court.

The religious make-up of the US Supreme Court is as follows:

John Roberts (Chief Justice) - Catholic

Stephen G. Breyer - Jewish

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish

Anthony M. Kennedy - Catholic

Antonin Scalia - Catholic

David H. Souter - Episcopalian

John Paul Stevens - Protestant

Clarence Thomas - Catholic

Samuel Alito - Catholic

http://tzvee.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-us-supreme-court-justice-david.html

[Key Guy]

Quote:

The religious make-up of the US Supreme Court is as follows:

John Roberts (Chief Justice) - Catholic

Stephen G. Breyer - Jewish

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish

Anthony M. Kennedy - Catholic

Antonin Scalia - Catholic

David H. Souter - Episcopalian

John Paul Stevens - Protestant

Clarence Thomas - Catholic

Samuel Alito - Catholic

Next Justice - Muslim

[phkrause]

We also could use an SDA on the Supreme Court!

pk

[Dr. Shane]

I expect an extreme, liberal justice to be appointed. Obama is far left in his judicial philosophy. He strongly believes in judicial activism.

[Joe_in_RP]

Shane my friend, I don't believe there are liberals or conservatives anymore. The only question I have is whether the appointment will be catholic. 5 of 9 is a majority. There is a potential for a very stacked deck. I have seen no news media talk about this. The public is quiet ignorant on it. Let's not forget history. For over 1000 years the papacy ruled the world.

[carolaa]

I expect an extreme, liberal justice to be appointed. Obama is far left in his judicial philosophy. He strongly believes in judicial activism.

I'm not sure Obama is that far to the left. He supports the death penalty more strongly than many liberals.

[Dr. Shane]

Obama's judicial philosophy is very far to the left. It is quite extreme. Obama rightly understands that the Constitution was written to restrict the government. However Obama thinks the founders made a mistake in writing it so. Yes, Obama freely takes this position - it isn't a secret. Obama thiks the founders should have written into the Constitution obligations the government had to provide certain things to the people. That would be an activist document instead of a restrictive document.

Knowing that, it only makes sense that Obama would appoint someone that agrees with him. I would like to see him appoint his wife. She fits the bill. She is a black, female, liberal lawyer. Why not?

[phkrause]

I have no problem with him picking his wife. But its not going to happen.

pk

[carolaa]

Don't they usually pick people who have already served as judges elsewhere?

[Dr. Shane]

Usually they pick judges that are currently sitting on a federal appeals court or a state supreme court. But Constitutionally there is no requirement to be a judge or a lawyer.

[Dr. Shane]

I have no problem with him picking his wife. But its not going to happen.

pk

This would pose an interesting issue of separation of powers. Remember when some far left liberals were concerned about Vice President Sick Chenney going fishing with Scalia? Hmmmm, would they be concerned about the President sleeping in the same bed and being romantically involved with a Supreme Court justice?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

I have no problem with him picking his wife. But its not going to happen.

pk

This would pose an interesting issue of separation of powers. Remember when some far left liberals were concerned about Vice President Sick Chenney going fishing with Scalia? Hmmmm, would they be concerned about the President sleeping in the same bed and being romantically involved with a Supreme Court justice?

You did mean Dick Chenney, right? Not Sick Chenney! Oops!

And I agree, that's why I don't think it will happen, That the President will appoint his wife.

pk

[olger]

Obama's judicial philosophy is very far to the left. It is quite extreme. Obama rightly understands that the Constitution was written to restrict the government. However Obama thinks the founders made a mistake in writing it so. Yes, Obama freely takes this position - it isn't a secret. Obama thiks the founders should have written into the Constitution obligations the government had to provide certain things to the people. That would be an activist document instead of a restrictive document.

Knowing that, it only makes sense that Obama would appoint someone that agrees with him. I would like to see him appoint his wife. She fits the bill. She is a black, female, liberal lawyer. Why not?

Why on earth would you like to see this, Shane ?

rejoice always,

og

[Dr. Shane]

Why? It would be so historic that the first black President appoint be the first to appoint his wife on the Supreme Court. Imagine the media storm. North Korea could nuke Japan and it probably wouldn't even make the headlines.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, I have changed my position. I now believe President Obama should choose Judge Judy.

[phkrause]

Now that would be a riot. I was just watching her the other day. She takes nothing from nobody.

pk

[bonnie]

Now that would be a riot. I was just watching her the other day. She takes nothing from nobody.

pk

In an announcement Obama gave he wants the next judge to be able to empathize. Empathy has nothing to do with following the rule of law.

Judges are not to be activist but it seems Obama has other ideas

A common theme to Obama's description of the type of judge he would appoint is empathy, and the ability to relate to the lives of people affected by judicial decisions.

[phkrause]

Well Judge Judy would not be his choice than, that's for sure.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

Isn't Judge Judy empathetic?

[bonnie]

Well Judge Judy would not be his choice than, that's for sure.

pk

One would think that a understanding of the rule of law would be a high priority.

http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=933

Obama

[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

[bonnie]

Isn't Judge Judy empathetic?

She follows the rule of law. It is not tailored to fit her empathy.

[bonnie]

Once we lose or began changing the constitution and basing SSCourt decisions on feelings instead of law,how long before our turn.

As of now we still have the rule of law and the constitution. The time will come when "feelings from the courts" will decide our fate.

[carolaa]

I think all he means is that judges should be able to use a little common sense when considering their verdicts. Unfortunately, their hands are often tied by the federal and state legislatures who try to take over the judiciary branch by enacting minimum and/or mandatory sentences. The judiciary has always been somewhat affected by the personal feelings of individual members, for better or worse.

[Dr. Shane]

Liberals typically favor activist courts. Activists courts legislate from the bench which is an abuse of their power but the only way to hold them in check is by amending the Constitution. Judges are to have their hands tied by the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the Constitution to determine if laws passed by legislators are Constitutional or not. President is a judicial activist and we can expect liberal judges to be appointed by him.

Conservatives typically favor constructionist courts. These are courts that try to determine the original intent behind phrase and amendments in the Constitution. They do not try to decide what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Their only concern is what the intent of the Constitution's authors were. The people can always amend the Constitution if they no longer agree with the original intent.

Liberals are more successful in pushing their agenda through activist courts than they are getting it through legislative bodies. Abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court - not a legislative body. The teaching of creation was ban by an activist court, not a vote of the people. I could go on and on. The liberal agenda needs liberal courts because the majority of the population is too conservative to go along with it.

[bonnie]

I think all he means is that judges should be able to use a little common sense when considering their verdicts. Unfortunately, their hands are often tied by the federal and state legislatures who try to take over the judiciary branch by enacting minimum and/or mandatory sentences. The judiciary has always been somewhat affected by the personal feelings of individual members, for better or worse.

Supreme Court judges are to rule on the intent of the law.Decisions should not be based on "feelings' where there is law to used

Obama has made this statement more than once.

Obama does not agree with the constitution as it is written either. This comes from him.........

"The constitution is made up of negative restraints and did not go far enough in redistribution of wealth".

When these two are lost our own safety net on this earth will have gone with it.