President Barack Obama made a surprise appearance at the daily press briefing today to address the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter and criteria for a replacement, with senior advisers behind him: Left to right: Chief of Saff Rahm Emanuel, Counsel Greg Craig and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. (AP Photo by Charles Dharapak)
by Mark Silva and Christi Parsons, updated at 3:30 pm EDT
With the confirmed retirement of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, President Barack Obama said today that he will seek a replacement with "a sharp and independent mind,'' and the White House added that Obama will seek in his first appointment to the court a candidate with "diversity of experience.''
Obama, personally announcing to reporters today that Souter (pictured at left) has informed him of his plan to retire, said he will seek someone with a "sharp and independent mind" to replace the retiring justice.
"He came to the bench with no particular ideology," Obama said of Souter, complimenting the retiring justice. "He consistently defied labels and resisted absolutes."
In his place, Obama told reporters in an impromptu appearance in the press briefing room of the West Wing this afternoon, "I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind," someone who understands more than just a "footnote in a case book" but also "the realities" of how the law affects people's daily lives.''
Obama said that he values the "quality of empathy," and those of "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" in the process of arriving at decisions.
He said he will consult with members of Congress of both parties as he proceeds in his search for "somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values." And he hopes to have the new justice seated by the start of October, the beginning of the court's next term.
With Obama's own legal grounding as a teacher of constitutional law, at the University of Chicago, he "will be actively engaged in discussions ... in the right kind of candidate to pick, ensuring diversity in their background and experience,'' White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.
Asked about any "short list'' for an opening on the court, Gibbs said, ""Many people here have been working on the likely eventuality... the event that there might be a Supreme Court opening. They've been going through names, but I'm not going to get into a short, medium or long list.''
Asked if experience as a federal judge will be necessary, or if the president might seek someone who has spent a career in politics, Gibbs said: "The president... will look for diversity of experience... I don't want to get into exactly this or that qualification, but a diversity of experience.''
(Photo of Justice David Souter above by Mark Wilson / Getty Images. Photo of President Barack Obama's advisers, above, left to right: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House Counsel Greg Craig and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, by Ron Edmonds / AP.)
Among legal and political observers, speculation has focused on a field that includes at least one candidate who could offer the high court its first Hispanic justice and a second woman on the bench: Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Other potential candidates are said to include the Obama administration's solicitor general, Elena Kagan, and Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and Judge Kim Wardlaw of the 9th Circuit in California.
.
The names of Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of the Stanford Law School, and Seth Waxman, a former U.S.solicitor general, have surfaced in some circles, as has that of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Asked how important "diversity'' will be in the selection of a nominee, Gibbs said of the president's considerations: "I think the most important thing, to him, is diversity of experience - somebody who has not just thought about the law, but somebody who has the type of experience to understand how the decisions that he or she might make... might affect every day, average Americans.''
For instance, on a question of pay disparities for women, he said, that would call for "a person who could understand, through empathy, the situation that she was dealing with.''
Souter, a New Hampshire Republican who became a key liberal vote on the Supreme Court, reportedly plans to retire this summer, clearing the way for Obama's first nomination to the court.
Because the court has only one woman among its nine justices, most observers have predicted that Obama will select a woman for the first court opening.
The replacement for Souter is unlikely to alter the court's ideological balance, because he has provided a reliable liberal on all major issues decided recently, including abortion, civil rights, religion, Guantanamo Bay detention and the death penalty, and Obama is likely to name a justice of similar inclinations.
This could be only the first of Obama's opportunities to shape the court, however.
Two of Souter's favorite colleagues - Justices John Paul Stevens, 89, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76 -- have been the center of retirement speculation.
Souter's pending retirement puts another important issue before Obama. The president is a former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and has knowledge of the issues before the court. He also knows many lawyers and judges he could nominate.
Obama chose Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School, for solicitor general, the administration's lawyer before the court. But she has yet to argue a case.
Wood, an appointee of President Clinton to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, is likely to be considered. She has taught at the University of Chicago and knows Obama.
Liberal activists have high hopes that Obama will appoint a solid liberal. Though Clinton's appointees -- Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- have voted reliably on the liberal side, neither has been a champion of social justice in the style of Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.
During the campaign, Obama praised Souter as a sensible and reasonable judge who is not an ideologue. Obama also said he wanted to appoint a justice who had empathy for real people with real problems. He suggested that some of the justices, although academically brilliant, have little understanding of those who struggle in their daily lives.
David G. Savage contributed to this report from Washington
Comments
How about just picking the best judge?!? Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: James Sullivan | May 1, 2009 3:39 PM
Diversity of experience means "liberal". Not good.
Posted by: Alz | May 1, 2009 3:48 PM
Oh brother. I wish he'd just be honest for once and come out and say he's going to appoint a far-left liberal. Now I want to be clear that I am not complaining - he won the election and this is one of the priveleges that goes to the winner, but I just wish politicians would be honest once a month. He is going to pick someone "independent", just like he is not for big government, he didn't bow to the Saudi Prince, he is going to have a transparent administration, he is going to close Guantanamo, etc. I literally don't believe a word anybody at any level of government says any more.
Just watch, this pick will be someone from academia who has represented a number of left-leaning groups like the ACLU. Again, nothing wrong with that, just tell us the truth.
Posted by: Charlie | May 1, 2009 3:49 PM
"Diversity of Expeerience", Barry style = black and far left.
Posted by: BDD | May 1, 2009 4:04 PM
Can't wait for this one. Is Bill Ayers avaialble? He can bomb the rest of the members of the bench if they disagree with his liberal agenda.
Posted by: Red Blooded American | May 1, 2009 4:08 PM
Does President "Free Pass" know anyone worth appointing who has paid their taxes?
Posted by: Paul | May 1, 2009 4:17 PM
Obama could nominate Attila the Hun and the Republicans in the controlling positions in their party would decide that he was a socialist at heart and oppose him. Likewise Lenin and Trotsky.
This is another chance for the long knives to self lacerate the Repug party in order to bleed out all of the less than true believers and to fund raise off the true believer deadenders who make up their base (the South).
That they think Barack would have the slightest reason to listen to them, given that Souter's retirement is only quasi-official anyway, and they are already screaming, "Don't You Dare nominate anybody we won't like!"
Of course, being an ex legal professor, Barack can probably take the ABA list he supposedly will get, check off a dozen or so of the names on it he already knows and can work with, and send them off to be vetted.
If they are acceptable to a mostly Centrist Democrat nation, the fact that they aren't acceptable to the Radical Right doesn't matter. End of story.
Posted by: LoveBuzz | May 1, 2009 4:24 PM
Obama would have to appoint a dedicated communist to even halfway BALANCE the Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia right-wing fascist crew. Maybe a former SDS Weatherman or Black Panther would come CLOSE to equalizing one of those guys.
Posted by: Alice Palmer | May 1, 2009 4:31 PM
Charlie, the problem is he just can't come out and state a simple truth like that. You and I may appreciate that kind of honesty, but the right would have a field day with it.
At the same time if Bush had stated that the reason we were going into Iraq was to stabilize a primary oil supplier for the U.S. and to ensure that they would keep supplying us I'd have been much happier than the WMD BS. If he had though the left would have had their own field day with it.
No, I think we'd better just get used to being lied to. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Posted by: Dave | May 1, 2009 4:37 PM
"Diversity of experience"? Please. Why doesn't he just come out and say he's going to appoint an ultra liberal? I have absolutely no doubt that he is going to appoint a Hispanic. Especially right now when everyone is fear-mongering on Mexicans because of the flu. He has refused to close the border because he does not want to offend the Mexicans and Hispanics who live here who are not illegal and who can actually vote.
By picking a Hispanic for the court, he will be sending a message to the country and to the world that he believes in Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.
I have no doubt that if he could annex Mexico as the 51st state in order to pick up votes, he would.
Posted by: Gary | May 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Diversity of experience means "liberal". Not good.
Posted by: Alz | May 1, 2009 3:48 PM
Yes Alz, people who have lots of experiences do tend to realize that most conservative positions are nonsense. I agree that to get a conservative he would need to find someone who has severly limited their experiences.
Posted by: Marcy | May 1, 2009 4:52 PM
I guarantee that the Senate Republican knuckle-draggers will fillibuster ANYONE Pres Obama nominates. This in spite of the fact that there doesn't exist a judge who is as far to the left as Sam Alito is to the right and the Democrats were forced to eat that nomination.
Just watch; he could appoint the re-incarnation or Thurgood Marshall and the Senate Republicans would try to block him.
Posted by: party gal = Teresa | May 1, 2009 4:52 PM
Posted by: Gary | May 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Oh no not a Hispanic! The Horror! The Horror!
Posted by: Luis | May 1, 2009 5:25 PM
I've been following this story online and on NPR. Obama has emphasized that a candidate must have a "sharp mind"; it's press secretary Gibbs who seems hung up on "diversity of experience" and "empathy." Now no matter how qualified the nominee, if Obama selects a woman and/or minority justice, the right wing will complain of tokenism -- as if only white males can be fair, objective judges.
Souter wasn't a liberal ideologue lurking inside a Republican exterior; far from it. He was an old-school Republican capable of separating constitutional issues from social ones. Such folk, alas, are scarce today.
Posted by: LisaG | May 1, 2009 5:37 PM
From his words - he means some some Chicago Demrocrat machine hack sponsored by the unions.
Posted by: Inky | May 1, 2009 5:37 PM
Meaning white males will not be considered, regardless of qualifications. Now that's an open mind.
Posted by: John | May 1, 2009 5:51 PM
Posted by: Alice Palmer | May 1, 2009 4:31 PM
How about Bobby Rush??? : )
Posted by: lochnessmonster | May 1, 2009 5:53 PM
By picking a Hispanic for the court, he will be sending a message to the country and to the world that he believes in Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.I have no doubt that if he could annex Mexico as the 51st state in order to pick up votes, he would.
Posted by: Gary | May 1, 2009 4:40 PM
***************
Hmmmm, I'm going to have go to my Republican dictionary to decipher this nonsence.
Republican Dictionary:
----------------------
~ People of Hispanic Heritage = fear the scary brown people.
~ Activist Judge = any judge that does note rule 100% the way the right-wing luntic fringe wants them to rule
Class dismissed....
Posted by: Jimi Jagger | May 1, 2009 5:55 PM
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will block anyone Obama nominates - even if it were Jesus himself - since the Lord was a socialist in nature. This is pretty sad since the Republicans have been stacking the Supreme Court for years. Mitch McConnell has no business telling the President how he should make his picks, either. And all they talk about is abortion - a bunch of old white men talking about abortion! What a joke. Last I heard, the Supreme Court ruled on cases on other things, too.
Posted by: Andrea | May 1, 2009 6:00 PM
Meaning white males will not be considered, regardless of qualifications. Now that's an open mind.
Posted by: John | May 1, 2009 5:51 PM
.
Really? That's funny, I've read his statement three times now and yet somehow I still don't see the "white males will not be considered" statement.
You got anything else you want to pull out of your backside?
Posted by: Teresa | May 1, 2009 6:01 PM
It would be a relief if Obama would simply appoint someone who read the law and applied it, as the oath requires.
Instead, we may suffer the consequences of yet another fantasist with visions of emanations from penumbras and "social justice", the sort of activist dictators whom Jefferson rightly warned us of when he termed the judiciary the despotic branch.
Sadly, reading the law and applying it has fallen into popular disfavor, witness the several inept descriptions of "conservatism" above.
A sorry state when the Constitution is regarded as a "thug's" device.
Posted by: W.P.Z. | May 1, 2009 6:08 PM
Meaning white males will not be considered, regardless of qualifications. Now that's an open mind.
Posted by: John | May 1, 2009 5:51 PM
Meaning that the only candidate you will accept as legitimate is a white male. Now that's a very closed mind.
Posted by: Luis | May 1, 2009 6:09 PM
If Republicans somehow think they're going to be getting another right-wing lunatic fringer judge like Scalia out of this, then they're sadly mistaken.
In the addled minds of these wingnut goons, unless you oppose reproductive freedom and support stealing elections, you're an extremist.
No wonder their movement has collapsed...
Posted by: DrainYou | May 1, 2009 6:12 PM
What has Obama done since he's been elected President? Better yet, what did he do before he got elected as President? I see a whole lot of talk and no walk going on. I keep hearing about how they got a dog, and Michelle's hair and make-up, and clothes and a bunch of other UN-important garbage. All this bail out money,- What has it done? Are people better off now? Now, he'll have the opportunity to elect some goof into the Supreme Court. Shape up Obama!!
Posted by: Rachel | May 1, 2009 6:28 PM
Marcy said: "Yes Alz, people who have lots of experiences do tend to realize that most conservative positions are nonsense. I agree that to get a conservative he would need to find someone who has severly limited their experiences."
Oh yes, tell us how over 40 years of liberalism has helped the inner cities? The facts are that it has brought a lot of hopelessness, despair and death.
Conservatism is how the country was Founded; liberalism is our demise.
Posted by: Alz | May 1, 2009 6:45 PM
Obama thinks experience is a requirement?
.
C'mon, is he for real?
Posted by: Greg | May 1, 2009 6:48 PM
Oh Please!!...here comes another Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
I'm surprised you let Jimi Jager make his ridiculous racist comments about Republicans on this blog....aren't you suppose to sensor that type of stuff?
Posted by: Joe | May 1, 2009 7:01 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Obama to nominate Jesus Christ to Supreme Court -- Republicans Announce Filibuster!
In a breaking story still emerging, President Barack Obama has announced the nomination of Jesus Christ of Nazareth to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court to replace the retiring justice David Souter. Republicans have hastily called a press conference to announce outrage at the selection, and an immediate filibuster.
Here is the initial story from the A.P.
.
"Obama to nominate Jesus Christ to Replace Souter
Friday, May 1st, 1:22pm Arse-ociated Press
WASHINGTON -- In a hastily called West Wing press conference, President Barack Obama announced that he would be nominating Jesus Christ of Nazareth to replace the retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court. "I'm confident that I'd found a candidate known for wisdom, humility, affinity for all human beings, and a solid sense of justice," Obama said, with Jesus standing quietly next to him in meditative repose. "I'm also confident that I've found a candidate all congressmen, republicans and democrats, can agree would make a valuable addition to the court" Obama continued, as Jesus blessed the wine. Picking such a globally revered figure, and the founder of Christianity, was a bold move by Obama that some experts said would force republicans to offer their support. But by early afternoon, the republican response had yet to take shape".
.
You'd think by nominating the globally respected philosopher, religious icon and founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, would go over well with Republicans. You'd be wrong:
More from the AP:
"This is yet another example of a liberal president nominating a liberal, without any consultation with the republican party on his selection." Newt Gingrich responded at a hastily called press conference from the bedside of his cancer ridden dying wife, whom he's divorcing. Convicted Felon Tom Delay agreed, continuing Gingrich's line of attack in a solo appearance on Meet The Press. "The President assumes that just because we invoke Jesus's name while justifying violent torture, starting horrible wars and letting millions of children go without health insurance, that we're an automatic vote for Jesus. Not this time, Mr. President!" Delay snapped. David Gregory followed up with questions about how his hair looked, then booked Delay for the next seven consecutive Meet the Presses"
.
By the early afternoon, Republican opposition to the nomination had begun to take shape, as Fox News unveiled a two hour special, Jesus Christ: What you Didn't Know.:
"What do we really know about this 'Jesus of Nazareth,' if that is his real name. Some say he spends time with prostitutes!" said Sean Hannity in the opening intro, which featured ominous music over still-frames of the young Jesus. "He's from the middle east. Could he have associations with terrorism that we don't yet know about?"
Later, on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly continued the argument. "I don't see how any patriotic American can support this nomination. The guy was a carpenter, gimmie a break! Who are we gonna nominate next? Harrison Ford? I call on all patriotic Americans to join me in this war on Christ!"
Eric Cantor responded by press release:
"I speak for all Jewish republicans in congress, currently only me, when I say that I am deeply troubled and concerned that Jesus Christ is so obviously and clearly Christian. Even his last name suggests a bias that our Supreme Court should not have. The republican party is not simply a party of white Christians, even though the liberal media wants you to believe that. There's also me. The white Jewish guy." Cantor's statement read.
And four hours later, Cantor released a second press release:
"I have just been informed that Jesus Christ is actually Jewish. But I must remain opposed to this nomination. This is not because I'm a partisan hack who reflexively votes against anything done by the democrats, and then searches for a justification. It's because Jesus Christ has murky middle eastern origins, palls around with prostitutes, and may or may not have committed an act of terrorism at a Sunday pot luck dinner being held inside a church."
Head of the RNC, Michael Steele, then chimed in:
"I'm cool with it, bros. Jesus is my homeboy."
Steele responded again, two hours later:
"I soundly reject the nomination of this so-called "community organizer" to the Supreme Court, and never said otherwise. If you play my quotes back to show I'm a hypocrite, it won't matter, since the few remaining republican voters don't know how to use the internet."
By the evening, things had spun completely out of control, as Fox News began to "report" on so-called "Crucifixion Parties," in which right wing reactionary protesters marched with signs that read "Sit on my court? I'll nail you to it!" and "Judge not, lest ye be lynched!"
In his forty-third appearance on cable news, Bill Kristol had the following to say:
"People think the Republican party doesn't want to work with Democrats on this nomination. We do. Believe me, the last thing we want to do is filibuster. We just want a candidate who more reflects the core values of the Republican party. Like Idi Amin. Or Pol Pot."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer summed up the debate with the following report on The Situation Room:
"The Democrats argue they're nominating a figure that Republicans have long invoked as the core of their world view, and that therefore it is ridiculous for Republicans to filibuster. A Republican press release, just issued to CNN, responds by saying, and I'm quoting, 'OINKY WINKY DINKY DOO!!' Is that gibberish or not? It's not for me to say. My hair is silver."
Posted by: Shout Out to my Sweet Homies! | May 1, 2009 7:01 PM
Anybody getting hip to ultra lib "op-speak?" they say the opposite of what they're going to do, call the opposition exactly what they are, and the worst of it, fool enough people to get in power and pass their programs. "op" equals opposite, optimization. Exit strategy, anyone?
Posted by: out from under a leaf | May 1, 2009 7:18 PM
This is a no brainer - it will be Sotomayor - woman, Hispanic, a New Yorker. It would be in keeping with his "history making" administration razzle-dazzle in appointing the first Hispanic to the Supremes. It has nothing to do with the law, it's all about 2012.
Posted by: vla | May 1, 2009 7:20 PM
You Obama bashers are sickening. Once again you insult him for something he has not yet done. Furthermore your insults are so incredibly childish, they say a lot more more about you than Obama? Bill Ayers? Annex Mexico? Please tell me when you intend to go through puberty. You might also develop a memory. Where do you think the last two justice picks came from- as if ultra-right picks are any more fair that ultra-left picks? Grow up!
Posted by: Disgusted | May 1, 2009 7:23 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: party gal = Teresa | May 1, 2009 4:52 PM
.
You wouldn’t know left from right if you were in a revolving door.
Posted by: John W. | May 1, 2009 7:35 PM
You mean Al Sharpton, BO?
Posted by: Harold Reimann | May 1, 2009 7:40 PM
@ Andrea
"The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will block anyone Obama nominates - even if it were Jesus himself "
And the dems didn't block anyone and everyone Bush nominated? Lets face it, this country is full of partisans like me and YOU...call a spade a spade and quit pretending to be an independent.
Posted by: cpfoutz | May 1, 2009 7:45 PM
I'd like to see Obama seriously consider a Native American.
Posted by: JSC606 | May 1, 2009 8:01 PM
I heard Roland Burris has already put in a call to Obama...REALLY just can't die without having SUPREME COURT chiseled on the tombstone!
Posted by: DD | May 1, 2009 8:06 PM
Republicans don't need any opportunities to unite. The conservatives have already frog marched every one who isn't 100% with them out of the party. I suspect that Obama will nominate a reasonable candidate, conservatives will throw hissy-fits (ignoring their previous cries for "up or down votes"), the candidate will be confirmed, and Republicans will be further exposed as the obstructionist ideological stooges that they are.
Posted by: Lance Votto | May 1, 2009 8:14 PM
The Republican Party may be united by a battle over Suter's replacement, but that unification will be of the extreme right and far to the right of the vast majority of Americans.
The result will be a united extreme right wing group incapable of drawing people from the middle. Even younger fundemantalist Christians are walking away from them.
The GOP is purging its moderates. Stupid is as stupid does.
Maybe what will come about is a new political party of moderates in the center leaving the extremes of the right-wing out there in la la land. The country needs doers and problem solvers -- not la la land crazy teabaggers.
Posted by: Jarron Gilbert | May 1, 2009 8:25 PM
Alice,
In the circles BO runs in, it shouldn't be too hard to find a dedicated communist. Isn't Bernadine Dohrn an attorney?
What's Janet Reno doing now?
Posted by: Terry | May 1, 2009 8:26 PM
Who are they kidding. They will put a baby killer on the court. They will bow to the liberal immoral Hollywood crowd and the ACLU. The life of a child means nothing to them. Money for the abortionist crowd is everything. They support the democratic party and this will be just another pay to play.
Posted by: Juan | May 1, 2009 8:44 PM
What I read in "diversity of experience" was "no legal experience". It needs to be a woman.
Posted by: Meg | May 1, 2009 8:47 PM
*sigh* ... the wingnuts once again suffer from Wingnut Tourettes:
"A-A-A-Ayers...Wa-Wa-Wrriight...co-co-commm-unist...sh-sh-socialist...t-t-t-taxes...F-f-f-fu-FrankDoddPelosiReed...ttt-terrorist..KenyanMuslim...b-b-b-bllaaaaaaaccck...lib-lib-lib...gaaaaaaaa"
Posted by: Sotto Voce | May 1, 2009 8:56 PM
Obama will appoint a Pontiac GTO Judge to the court.Not only has it been around the block,but it puts more power under the hood.
Posted by: James Reyes | May 1, 2009 9:30 PM
I hope there is a dark-skinned, tax-cheat with a tiny bit of judicial experience somewhere out there.
Posted by: West Side Joe | May 1, 2009 11:01 PM
Folks, it's going to be a shine. I hate to spill the beans, but I've had a few glasses of wine.
Posted by: Joe Biden | May 1, 2009 11:07 PM
Posted by: Charlie | May 1, 2009 3:49 PM
Well, after the extreme right, activist ideologues appointed the last couple years, the court could use some balance.
But the primary problem is that justices are supposed to be neither right or left. By definition, they have to be center. They can have NO partiality one way or the other.
But since Newt Gingrich started this mess with his "Contract On America". And the right wing media, talking head extremists and facists have poisoned the land with hate, we need to get back to true justice. Which is blind, honest and fair.
Posted by: syj | May 1, 2009 11:30 PM
Who are they kidding. They will put a baby killer on the court.
Posted by: Juan | May 1, 2009 8:44 PM
*************
We thought about it but Bush and Cheney have already retired.
Posted by: Julio Lugo | May 1, 2009 11:40 PM