Justice Stevens Retirement and a Look at the Candidates

Today, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. This gives President Obama his second Supreme Court Justice nomination. Stevens was appointed by President Ford shortly after the Watergate scandal and is the Supreme Court's longest serving member. Stevens is also the leader of the liberal bloc on the court. He is scheduled to retire in late June/early July.

Stevens has been planning to retire since last summer and sent his letter of resignation to President Obama today. Stevens stated "that it would be in the best interests of the court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term" which begins in October. But who is Stevens kidding? He really wants to retire before the next court term starts so that President Obama still has a Senate majority before the November midterm elections. The November midterms may reduce the Democrat's majority. With the Senate majority in place, Obama should have no real problem with the confirmation hearings.
I am not trying to discredit Justice Stevens term on the bench but I just find it a rather odd decision to retire before the midterm elections so that there is plenty of time for confirmation hearings.

There are three leading candidates to fill the Justice Stevens position. They are:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49
Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland, 57
Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, 59

Let's take a look at these candidates more closely.




Solicitor General Elena Kagan- Former professor and dean of Harvard Law School; Domestic policy aide to President Clinton. She was very successful at calming down the faculty and for bringing in many conservatives to the college. She has already passed one Senate confirmation hearing to become Solicitor General. There are some concerns with Kagan. First, many state her lack of experience as a judge and, therefore, has no "paper trail" for her views. Another concern with Kagan is her decision as dean of Harvard Law School where she banned military recruitment on the campus to protest the passage of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" homosexual policy in the military, claiming the latter violated the First Amendment.



Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood- Former University of Chicago law professor; Anti-trust expert in the Clinton Justice Department; Appointed to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) by President Clinton in 1995. Wood is by far the most liberal of all three candidates. Therefore, she may face a lot of difficulty in her confirmation hearings if chosen. She is a very strong pro-choice advocate and has even argued against bans on partial-birth abortions. Some conservatives claim that she has disregarded Supreme Court precedents. Others claim that she may push for the removal of "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the approval of same-sex marriages.




Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland- In 1989, Garland left a law firm to become a federal prosecutor in Washington D.C. He supervised a variety of civil, criminal, and national security matters in the Clinton Justice Department, including initial proceedings against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. He was later appointed to the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals. Garland is a moderate Democrat who is applauded by both Democrats and Republicans and seems the most likely to face little difficulty in the confirmation hearings.

There are many other questions facing President Obama: Should he appoint a strong liberal, like Stevens, or a more moderate candidate? Should he appoint a Protestant (Wood) or someone of Jewish background (Kagan/Garland)? Does he risk appointing the first homosexual to the Supreme Court (Kagan)?

Common Sense- I think former Attorney General Edward Meese said it best when talking about the retirement of Justice Steven's and Obama's appointment:

"Never has it been more important in our nation’s history that the next Supreme Court justice be a person with a proven commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as they are written. Many laws being passed and issues being raised in Washington will likely require judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It is critical that the life-tenured justices who will decide these cases will not bend the law to favor a political ideology or personally held belief, but rather interpret our framework as it is written."

President Obama MUST choose a candidate who decides based on the law of the land, not on personal beliefs or political ideology. Therefore, if I HAVE to make a choice out of these candidates, I would go with Judge Merrick Garland. He seems the least controversial, is applauded by both parties, and has the experience to make intelligent decisions based on the Constitution. In my opinion, if Obama wants to avoid political suicide in the midterms elections and in his bid for re-election, he should choose Garland or someone similar.

-SGS