A couple weeks ago, Justice Ginsburg hinted to the country there would be a vacancy in the court. Well, here it is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193
Souter is one of several justices that Obama may end up replacing which may turn the direction of the court. Not good!
Souter has been very solidly among the “liberals” on the Court, and therefore there’s little chance that this will dramatically impact the so-called balance.
to put this as bluntly as I can…
President Fucktwit is going to replace Justice Fucktwit with another Fucktwit…
Souter is one of the most liberal justices on the court, unless Barry the Kenyan replaces him with Satin or Stalin nothing will change.
.
Time will tell.
Mutual assured destruction can sometimes work to enhance checks and balances.
Or not.
Depends , in part , on how well different factions can read the political tea leaves?
Well put. 
Remember though…Souter was placed by George W supposedly as a conservative, ending up more the opposite. If a conservative changed their views to a more liberal aspect, the same could happen to a liberal nominee.
The replacement of Souter is a non-issue right now in the whole 2A affairs. This guy has wanted to retire since Bush v. Gore in 2000. I honestly think he was waiting for a liberal president to do so.
One of the cases that this could VERY much impact, though not related to firearms ownership is Kelo v. City of New London, CT. In that 5-4 decision the rules about Eminent Domain increased heavily, and Souter was in the Majority.
The Democratic Party not solid, and as a Senator from the South said in the Bork hearings in the 1980’s was along the lines of if you vote against the nominee the White House would only be mad at you (for the most part) for a few days, but the people who want you to oppose them will be mad at you until the day after you lose your next re-election.
Another thing that is going to be interesting is that in the liberal legal community their is a growing movement that the 2A is what we think it means. In Heller v D.C Larry Tribe, the legal Harvard Law Professor who was tantamount in defeating Bork almost wrote a Friend of the Court Breif FOR HELLER. Though he didn’t write it, the fact it was known he was seriously considering it was big in and of itself.
Finally, Liberal doesn’t always mean anti-gun. I am finding that some people who call themselves a liberal do so because they are on some issues, but on others they could very well be viewed as more moderate to conservative.
I believe that in the end, we would prefer to keep Ginsburg and Souter. If you ask Scalia or Thomas about Ginsburg or Souter, they’ll note their disagreements with the liberal justices’ theories of constitutional interpretation. But, they’ll also note that both exhibit professionalism and make at least some attempt to legitimately apply judicial philosophy to the cases they confront.
I fear this will not be the case with upcoming liberal justices. People like Kathleen Sullivan have been tutored by the very far left (Lawrence Tribe), and have developed not only a liberal judicial philosophy, but also a far left agenda to promote should they reach the SCOTUS. The radicalism of legal education is not new, but it is getting more and more radical. Thus, you have the leftist ideology that first appeared in academia now beginning to make its way into the judicial arena.
Unless a conservative kicks it, nothing Obama can do will shift us from the 4.75-4.25 balance we have now (obviously I don’t buy Kennedy as a reliable justice). However, I do think he will structure the Court in a way that will significantly damage this country if American cultural and moral relativism continues at its current pace.
Justice Scrotum will not be missed by us, and he’s sure to be replaced by another 'lib!
Sonia Sotomayor is my prediction. Woman, Latina, Princeton/Yale, Serving on a Court of Appeal now.
People are very strange and can be completly unpredicatable when they put on the black robe of a new court.
YMMV
david of vcdgrips.com
Here are a few excerpts from Obama’s statement about Justice Souter. This ridiculousness and inaccuracy of what he says is unreal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/01/souter-informs-obama-decision-retire/
“Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda,” Obama said. “And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task – reaching a just result in the case that was before him.”
Yeah, uh huh, sure he did. :rolleyes:
Ehh, I see it as the usual political etiquette and don’t pay much head to it.
According to Fox News, the fact that Arlen Specter switched parties, may have actually given the Republicans a chance to block someone from the Supreme Court that may be viewed as too liberal.
If none of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee supports the nominee, then the nominee cannot be put before the Senate for a full vote. In th epast, Specter was seen as the lone Republican vote who would vote with the Dems.
FWIW
I’m not for sure but officially Specter is still a republican till the next election. In so much as he was before.
Souter was an embarrassment to New Hampshire.
I thought so at first, too. But, it turns out he officially switched to the Dems. He is now listed in the official Senate Website as a Democrat.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It will be interesting to see how he votes when Souter’s replacement is chosen and goes through the confirmation hearing.