Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Who Will Obama Pick to Replace Souter? | 05/01/2009 8:05 am

Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter Retirement Prompts Obama Nomination Rumors

Souter plans to retire after 19 years as a Supreme Court Justice, setting stage for Obama to fill the vacancy.
By The Staff at wowOwow.com
David H. Souter

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter plans to retire at the end of the court’s current term in June, National Public Radio reported late Thursday. Souter has already informed the White House of his decision.

Sixty-nine-year-old Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Liberals originally feared that the virtually unknown Republican would swing conservative, but his decisions proved otherwise, and Souter is known to fit in with the more liberal bloc. Souter in 1992 voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that affirmed abortion rights. After 19 years in the Supreme Court, Souter says he’s not a fan of politics and wants to settle in his home state of New Hampshire.

NPR reports that these females may likely end up on Obama’s short list:

  • Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court;
  • Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;
  • Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

The New Republic also suggests Obama will likely pick a woman:

A Democratic, female John Roberts would be a highly respected Democratic Supreme Court advocate, and the clear front-runner in that category is Beth S. Brinkmann, 49, a partner at Morrison & Foerster who has argued more than 20 cases before the Court. A lawyer like Brinkmann — moderate, pragmatic and pro-business — would have no trouble being confirmed to an appellate courtship, but there might not be enough time to get her through: Bush was able to promote Roberts from private practice only because there were no Supreme Court vacancies in his first term. A Democratic president may not have this luxury.
Tell us: Who Should Obama pick to fill Souter’s seat?

23 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

caj p
I hope Obama puts a lady in that position, we need more women on that panel it has been held by too many men for far too long.  Lets have a womens prospective on things for a change these men don’t have all the answers all the time.  Some of them have tunnel vision anyway!
By caj p on 05/01/2009 8:33 am
f p
I agree.
By f p on 05/01/2009 8:40 am
deber B
I agree, appointing a woman works for me!
By deber B on 05/01/2009 9:00 am
Barbara B
I’m all for a another woman on the Supreme Court as well.  I loved Sandra O’Connor.
By Barbara B on 05/01/2009 9:09 am
Georgia Eliot

 "I loved Sandra O’Connor."

Me too! I want her to run a Truth Commission on "enhanced interrogation techniques" and holding detainees for years without any due process and illegal wiretapping and the Patriot Act and the lies that led to the war in Iraq and while she’s at it she can look into Bush v Gore…..

By Georgia Eliot on 05/03/2009 11:06 pm
Libra Lady

Majority rules….a woman it shall be!!!!  Now follow thru obama!!!

By Libra Lady on 05/01/2009 9:30 am
Mary Quite-Contrary

The problem Obama will face is not a bumper crop of well qualified, intelligent women candidates; as there are many.  It is the political baggage that alot of his campaign rhetoric drags along.   Sadly, to keep his ‘base’ happy, alot of litmus tests will be applied to any Supreme nomination he makes. 

 

Souter was not a conservative or even a centrist on the bench; yet, because he was a ‘Bush’ appointment, I fear the far left will call for someone on the fringes to ‘make up’ for his perceived (though not validated by decision making) right leanings.  This is just going to be fascinating to watch…multiple times, as Ginsberg is in failing health.

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 05/01/2009 10:02 am
f p
Anyone he picks will cancel the vote of Scalia and will have my thanks for that.
By f p on 05/01/2009 1:03 pm
nanchan u

It is more important that we have a qualified person on the court than a person chosen on the basis of their sex.

To appoint a woman just because she is a woman is just as sexist as it would be to deny a woman a position because of her sex.

By nanchan u on 05/01/2009 10:06 am
Mary Quite-Contrary
I concur…but the political vollies (there is already another thread here on WOW of a NY, female hispanic jourist) are being fired.  Its the infighting that will occur (Obama has made tons of promises to everyone from ACORN on up) that will be facsinating to watch.  The devisive nature of viewing ‘groups’ as opposed to individuals is going to play out now.  Big time.
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 05/01/2009 10:13 am
nanchan u
Agreed, MQC… I love watching it all (as you do to!).  Should be very interesting in the days/weeks to come. :)
By nanchan u on 05/01/2009 10:16 am
Green Tears
I must confess that I am terrible about all the speculation. As I felt when househunting, my attitude is ‘just show me the one I’m going to get’. Listening to Morning Joe today and how a Hispanic woman would be the ideal candidate to make most people happy, I wonder how much an individual gets looked at as opposed to how many checkmarks they fill in on a form.
By Green Tears on 05/01/2009 11:29 am
nanchan u

That’s a great point.

I’ve also noticed that when applying for work online, it is no longer "optional" to fill out my racial, sexual, and veteran status.

Doesn’t seem much like an even playing field when the government grants tax incentives to hire minorities regardless of qualifications.

Kinda sets my blonde hair ablazing: but that’s a different thread entirely.

By nanchan u on 05/01/2009 11:37 am
Green Tears
My son (20) takes the opportunity to opt out whenever possible with checkmarks, figuring that anyone reading knows where that puts him, but they still can only guess… kind of sad to feel that way at such a young age, as the college application process got him started as a non-reporter.
By Green Tears on 05/01/2009 11:51 am
Laura Ward
The Supreme Court needs more than one female perspective to judge important issues. It has nothing to do with sexism.
By Laura Ward on 05/01/2009 9:16 pm