ILNews

Reports: Justice to retire; speculation begins

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reports broke late Thursday that a Supreme Court of the United States justice plans to retire from the bench but which justice may surprise some. Justice David Hackett Souter has decided to leave the bench following the current SCOTUS term, according to national news outlets. His retirement was confirmed this afternoon in a SCOTUS press release.

Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner said he wasn't surprised by the reports Justice Souter may be the first to leave the nation's highest court during President Barack Obama's administration. While many expected Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer, or Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89, to leave the bench first, Bodensteiner said there have been stories for sometime that Justice Souter doesn't like Washington, D.C., and was ready to return to New Hampshire.

Justice Souter sat on the Superior and Supreme Courts of New Hampshire prior to being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Following his appointment to the Supreme Court, some began to view Justice Souter as a disappointment because he aligned more with the "liberals" of the court, said Bodensteiner.

The assumption was he would be a reliable conservative, although no one knew much about him when he took the bench, said Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Charles Geyh. He established himself as a moderating influence on the court, and now appears more liberal than moderate because of the court's progressive shift to the right during the last generation. Geyh said he was surprised to learn of Justice Souter's retirement but thinks his leaving could set a good precedent for the court.

"If the reason he is retiring is because he's reached reasonable retirement age and thinks it's a good idea to leave when you reach a certain age, then it could set a good precedent," he said.

Sometimes justices may retain their spot on the bench longer than they should, and it's good to get new blood on the court. Geyh finds it interesting Justice Souter may view his time on the bench like many other Americans view their jobs and think when they reach a certain age, it's simply time to retire.

Both Bodensteiner and Geyh don't think Justice Souter's replacement will shift the ideological power of the court because President Obama will most likely pick someone who is also considered a liberal. However, Bodensteiner cautioned that we can't predict how a future justice may vote was on the bench, as proven by Justice Souter's voting record. Previous news reports and blogs have mentioned several potential candidates for vacant U.S. Supreme Court spots, including 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Diane P. Wood.

Neither professor could offer specific names as possible replacements for the justice, but Geyh said he wouldn't be surprised if a woman is selected. Whoever Obama selects, Geyh expects the Republicans will try to say the candidate is a liberal and challenge the nominee.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT