Real Estate Blog - Pondering the Supreme Court

Home : Blogs : Cheryl Johnson : CJ's Blog

Pondering the Supreme Court

I had a conversation with a couple friends yesterday about John McCain and his selection of Sara Palin as a running mate.

The conversation wound its way into the topic of a President's legacy being his (or her) Supreme Court appointments. And the possibility that the next president may have at least one appointment to make in the next four years, given that Justice John Paul Stevens is now in his late eighties.

I ended up making this list of the current Supreme Court Justices, sorted by each Justice's year of birth:

JUSTICE NAME	YEAR OF BIRTH	YEAR APPOINTED	APPOINTED BY

John Paul Stevens	1920	1975	Gerald Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsberg	1933	1993	Bill Clinton
Anthony Kennedy	1936	1988	Ronald Regan
Antonin Scalia	1936	1986	Ronald Regan
Stephen Breyer	1938	1994	Bill Clinton
David Hackett Souter	1939	1990	George H. W. Bush
Clarence Thomas	1948	1991	George H. W. Bush
Samuel Alito	1950	2006	George W. Bush
John Roberts, Chief Justice	1955	2005	George W. Bush

Here is the same list, sorted by each Justice's year of appointment:

JUSTICE NAME	YEAR OF BIRTH	YEAR APPOINTED	APPOINTED BY

John Paul Stevens	1920	1975	Gerald Ford
Antonin Scalia	1936	1986	Ronald Regan
Anthony Kennedy	1936	1988	Ronald Regan
David Hackett Souter	1939	1990	George H. W. Bush
Clarence Thomas	1948	1991	George H. W. Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsberg	1933	1993	Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer	1938	1994	Bill Clinton
John Roberts, Chief Justice	1955	2005	George W. Bush
Samuel Alito	1950	2006	George W. Bush

Something to ponder.

And for further pondering:

The Supreme Court Web Site

Short biographies of each justice

A U S News article about "Ranking the Politics of Supreme Court Justices"

Posted by Cheryl Johnson on 08/31/2008 11:21 AM

Comments (22)

cj, supreme court

Originally posted at: Random thoughts on art, technology, stuff, and occasionally Real Estate: Pondering the Supreme Court

This post has been included in California Information Los Angeles County, CA Information Highland Park, CA Information
Post is included in group: AR My Name is Cheryl
Post is included in group: Club Chaos
Post is included in group: Politics And Real Estate
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Wrong Right Turn

22 Comments on Pondering the Supreme Court

AUG

2008

Cheryl - I was actually talking to someone yesterday about this topic. I think this is one of the main areas where a President actually impacts things, to be honest.

Interesting to pondet the potential here. Thanks for sharing your research.

Nice post. I think if Barrack gets elected you will see Hillary as the first appointment to the supreme court he makes

This is an area that we all need to think about for the future. Who is it likely will be appointed in the next 4 or 8 years? And what values will they have?

I hate to admit it, but my fixaton with all things West Wing (we own all of the episodes and watch them repeatedly) is my main source of education on all things presidentially political, including Supreme Court Justice selection. If West Wing isn't authentic...please don't tell me. :)

I think there will be a tremendous impact... and little impact from the next President's appointments to the Supremes... It is very important, but often, Justices do not follow the expected path in their later decisions... So, Obama could as easily appoint a justice that would decide a landmark case in the conservative side as McCain.

I would seem to me at some point the justices would have to step down and allow new faces and ideas in over 80 seems like too old to handle a full schedule of activities.

Cheryl: I, for one, am very aware of the impact a president can have on the Supreme Court. If McCain wins, and then Palin becomes president... her appointments to the Supreme Court could very well lead America straight into a Theocracy. That is all we need... ultra conservatives and religious extremists in charge of our courts. Hello Saudi Theocracy. Hello Iranian Theocracy. It scares the poop out of me.

By the way... thanks so much for putting together your two versions of Supreme Court charts. Very useful... thanks so much !

Cheryl, My first reaction was wow 22 years since Scalia was named??? Where the heck did the last quarter century go?

Many of the appointees have voted in a way least expected when appointed. Personally, give me a strict constitutionalist, and I'm happy.

IMHO, the Judicary branches on state, local & federal levels, have way too much power in our current state of affairs. Legislating from the bench has become commonplace and is a scary direction to go whether left or right leaning.

Cheryl - I agree completely. If you wander onto my political columns from time to time you will know that I believe that the judicial appointments - particularly Supreme Court Justices - are probably the most important things that a President is called upon to do.

Karen - not to worry. Even with a McCain win in November (and I am pleased you speak of the possibility), the Senate is likely to continue a Democrat majority. As frustrating as that can be at times, it is what we mean by checks and balances.

Cheryl, your charts show something else of importance. A President does not always know what he is getting with a nomination. It is not unusual for a new Justice to change his (or her) perspective on issues when they have a new chair on the Supreme Court. That is not a criticism - the job is uniquely different than sitting on a lower court. But two very liberal Justices (Justice Stevens and Justice Souter) were appointed by Republican Presidents.

It all speaks to the genius of the founders. The House of Representatives with two year terms reflects most closely the changing mood of the country. The Senate with six year terms for members and a different set of operating rules tends to change and accept change more slowly. The Supreme Court with lifetime appointments usually tends to reflect the more established currents of history and is less swayed by the momentary shifts in the changing winds of public opinion. Not a bad system, all things considered.

I am actually looking forward for Stevens to be replaced by some one more conservative. Given whom John McCain took as his running mate I am pleased. However I may be disappointed if McCain decide to be a maverick on this particular issue.

Ted - I do wander into your political columns quite often. :-) And while we don't agree on all issues, I absolutely do agree with you here: That our system of checks and balances is truly amazing....

@Ginger ... I know ... where did the time go ??? ... and 17 years since the Clarence Thomas hearings.... remember those?

Ted, very well said. I love your last paragraph.

Cher, what a great post. Thank you for posting your research and the links! Very cool. :-)

Cheryl - great post, it is also important to look at how the justices voted on "landmark" cases. For instance, Roe v. Wade was made up of 5 Republican appiointed judges and 4 Democrat appointed judges. The decision was 7-2, with the two dissenters a Kennedy appointee and a Nixon appointee. In Kelo vs. New London it was a 5-4 decision with 3 Democrat appointed and two Republican appointed ruling against Kelo or for eminent domain being used to transfer land between private owners. The four dissenters were all Republican appointees.

Cheryl - we do not have to agree - that is why there are more than one choice.

It is the civil dialogue and mutual respect for opposing opinions that is important (and often missing)

@Mike .... It would be interesting to look at voting on "landmark" cases in a spreadsheet format. Hmmm ..... a project for another day.

Cheryl - that is an idea.

Stevens is 88? If McCain is too old at 72 what does that make Stevens?

Larry: All Stevens has to do is sit there, listen to the cases, let his law clerks do the work, and then make a smart, informed decision based on his years of experience.

SEP

2008

Karen,

An Iranian Theocracy? You need to do a bit of reading on the difference between two of the worlds major religions. Were you a boxer at one time in your life?

Cheryl - Thank you for compiling such good food for thought. I had not reflected lately on how strongly the court is stacked with Republican appointees. I would expect that Palen would try to find an ultra conservative from the religious right. However it is interesting, as people have stated above, to consider how justices have ofter voted in unexpected ways.

Kevin: How dare you get abusive with me. I will not take that kind of talk from the likes of you... so cut it out ! Do I make myself clear ? You want to debate some issues ? Fine. Just... no attacks.

Now... the Ayatollah's and clerics in Iran set many of the rules and laws that govern their society, and when a society is more or less ruled by clerics... and when they inforce their radical concept of morality on that society... like many of the far right seem to want... it is a form of Theocracy.

And by the way... my comment was addressed to Cheryl. Thank you so much. By the way... you might read Ted Baker's comment above about civil dialogue and mutual respect for opposing opinions.

This blog does not allow anonymous comments