Pro-speech, anti-affirmative action, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, anti-states’ rights.
He was seen as a moderate when appointed (by Gerald Ford) but is by some measures the most liberal justice.
He’s considered the leader of the four liberal justices, partly by virtue of having the most seniority. Here is Jeffrey Toobin’s profile of him from the March 22 issue of the New Yorker. It goes without saying that it’s long, but it tells you a lot about his career, his skills, and his views on how the court is supposed to work. Most of this is done as a way of looking at what the court will be like after he leaves.
Stevens announced retirement today. Let the fun begin.
Yawn…so Obama gets to replace one liberal justice with another…Does nothing to the current balance of the court
We are so very sorry for forcing you to participate in a thread that bores you to the point of yawning.
Except that isn’t how the Court works. There isn’t a set liberal and set conservative position on all issues - different Justices approach things in different ways. And the tests that they impose differ depending on their outlooks.
O’Connor I would argue was more on the conservative side of the jurisprudential divide, but never saw a bright line she didn’t want to cover with confusion and seemed to always decide things by recommending an 8 factor balancing test, which many would argue is more of a “liberal” thing to do.
The issues just don’t break down simply for a liberal-conservative split. I consider myself firmly liberal, but think Clarence Thomas is the only Justice who really understands the applicability of free speech when it comes to corporations.
Think of the use of substantive due process - while that can often be used for “liberal” causes, it also is the engine behind federal caps on punitive damages, soemthing the tort reformers on the right have been begging for (and a tip of the cap to Scalia there for a correct decision).
A slightly different angle. Stevens is the only Protestant on the court. If he is replaced by a non-Protestant, for the first time in US history there will be no Protestants on the SC. Does that matter at all in political terms?
Don’t forget U.S. District Judge Barefoot Sanders.
Whoah! You’re right - they’re all Catholics and Jews! You totally just blew my mind. Even Clarence Thomas is Catholic.
I’ve seen a lot of discussion about Kagan, and I know she’s the betting pick of a good friend of mine who had clerked for a federal judge a few years ago. But I wonder if she has enough epxerience to sail through. She’s never been a judge, hadn’t argued before the Supreme Court until she was made solicitor general, and doesn’t really have trial experience. I think she’s more of an academic. Which doesn’t mean she is unqualified or would be rejected, but could it mean it would be more work to get her confirmed than someone else, and potentially more trouble than the administration wants to take on at this time? Maybe.
I just found this articleby Nina Totenberg about the religious angle to the SCOTUS pick. So clearly the issue is in the air and could push Obama into picking a Protestant.
Does that mean Stevens has the Protestant seat on the court?
If Obama had any balls, he’d nominate an atheist. That would really send the TeaBaggers over the edge.
Notwithstanding my personal opposition to some of the President’s policies, I would like to announce that if asked, I will serve.
Oh, good. Get me a cup of coffee, please.
You know I either forgot Breyer was Jewish or I never realized it. Huh. Anyhow, it would be kind of hilarious if people tried to push Obama into picking a white Protestant man for diversity reasons, but I don’t think it’s going to pan out.
The irony is that Obama is probably going to get a bunch of heat if he doesn’t appoint a Protestant from people who didn’t have a problem with the fact the Republicans haven’t appointed a Protestant since 1981.
My mistake: Clarence Thomas was raised as a Catholic and currently is a Catholic but he was a Protestant at the time of his appointment in 1991.
Yeah, and how cool is his hair. Alas, he 65.
Granholm and Patrick seem like good choices though.
I don’t want to be sexist or anything, but I hope we don’t get to a place where all the conservative members of the court are men and all the liberal members of the court are women. I think that would be a bad thing for a Democratic Party to the extent it would further enable Republican marketing of conservatism as the “macho” political philosophy.
And I also wish we would get out of the pattern of nominating law professors and career justices with little or no real world experience.