The hints had been in the news for weeks. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was rumored to be retiring. The man is approaching 90. Just because an appointment to the Court is lifelong doesn’t mean you should stay your entire life. Stevens has been on the Court since I was in high school. That is no easy feat since my class just celebrated its 30th reunion last year.
Yesterday, the announcement came. I do believe that Associate Justice Stevens timed this announcement, by his own writing in the note sent to President Obama, with purpose. He wants to allow enough time so there is a new associate justice in place when the Court sits again in October, the start of its next term.
With Stevens’s letter to President Obama came the usual pundits saying this will allow Obama to leave his imprint on the Court. With the exception of Stevens who was a Ford appointee, the Court has two Ronald Reagan appointees – Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, one George H.W. Bush appointee – Clarence Thomas, two Bill Clinton appointees – Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, two George W. Bush appointees – John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito, and the recent Obama appointee – Sonia Sotomayor. The average age of these nine is just shy of 70 at 68, but that is an average and brought down by the fact that two of the more recent appointees – Sotomayor and Roberts – are still in their 50’s.
Now comes the part where I spout off about this process more than give you facts. The facts are above. The ironic part of all this is that Associate Justice Stevens was appointed by a president who was never elected to the presidency or the vice presidency. His appointer, Gerald R. Ford, was himself appointed to the vice presidency when Spiro Agnew resigned. After that, when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Ford became president. His biggest election win was for the Congressional seat he had held from the Grand Rapids, Michigan area.
As I was pondering this fact yesterday, I wondered if Nixon or Agnew would have ever survived in politics as they are today. For that matter, Ford was not without “family issues” that may have been a problem in today’s microscopic view of politicians.
Now, on with the irony. Stevens is currently one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court. Yet, Stevens was appointed by a Republican president. This begs the questions has Stevens become more liberal while sitting on the Court or has the Court become more conservative.
The overwhelming point is that two appointees does not truly stamp the Supreme Court with an Obama slant. Many presidents have appointed two Supreme Court justices. If I were to guess, George W. Bush may have had the most influence as he was allowed to appoint a Chief Justice as opposed to an Associate Justice.
The next few days will all focus on “the short list” of who may be announced as the Obama administration’s nominee. Pay attention! Chances are it will be a white male as Obama hit the minority trifecta by appointing a single mother who is Latina the first time. I know that sounds both sexist and racist but in the world of politics, it is most likely true.
Nicki's Nook 
The Stevens’ appointment may also show that justices may act differently on the court than on the bench. Once they’re confirmed, whether perceived as conservative or liberal, there’s no guaranteeing how they will analyze cases except based on their track record of analyzing cases. It also doesn’t take into account that they may change over the 30 years or so that they sit on the Court or alter their stances (although I haven’t seen much of that with certain Justices).
I’ve always been troubled by the politicization of a judicial process – that the ultimate law of our land can be affected by the President in power, that he can leave his stamp well beyond the years of his presidency in this manner. It would seem that there should be a “purer” way to select Justices.
Having my own political biases, I’m, of course, less troubled by this when the president in office is of my party, but it seems like an odd way to fill a Court in which an appointment is of such duration.
Linda – You are right. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned from the appointment of Stevens.
I do not know if there is a good way to get people in the judiciary. I am skeptical, on the local level, when we elect judges.
I agree, Nicki. It’s ridiculous to have the population elect them because when I see all those names of ballots, there’s no way I know what I’m doing. And the Senate and House of Representatives has their own agenda. I was thinking more along the lines of the judiciary themselves (the highest level) nominating, scrutinizing and awarding these positions.
Oh well, I guess I’m not running the world yet!
Fascinating analysis and predictions, Nicki. I can’t wait to see who emerges as the nominee.
I can’t either, Belinda.