The History Book Club discussion


Comments Showing 1-50 of 877 (877 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 17 18

message 1: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 05, 2010 04:31AM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
This is a thread to discuss the United States Supreme Court. There are quite a few posts in other threads which I will also move over for purposes of discussion.

Please feel free to discuss all aspects of the US Supreme Court here. You may add books, articles, websites, etc. to augment your discussions. When adding sources, be sure to always cite them with book cover, author's photo (if available) and always the author's link. This is one of our guidelines.

message 2: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Yay! I don't have anything particular to add at the moment beyond my note of enthusiasm, but this is an interest of mine so hope to hang out here.

One of the books on my to-read list is The Nine. I plan to get to it by the summer at least.
The Nine Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin by Jeffrey Toobin

message 3: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Glad you are happy Alisa; we try to add those interest areas which are requested as we get to them in the queue. We have a great many posts about the Supreme Court that we will move as we have time.

Thank you for your wonderful add.

message 4: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 06, 2010 11:21AM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Here is an article about Justice Sotomayer in the New Yorker written by Laura Collins:

It is titled NUMBER NINE.

This was an interesting paragraph and I just had to smile...the Justice is all lawyer and judge even in matters of the heart:

Unlike a lot of judges, Sotomayor reads briefs first. She then passes them to her clerks, with annotations to guide their research. Many clerks noted the extent to which Sotomayor delves into the factual record from the lower court. “She takes each case and works it to death to get the right result,” Adam Abensohn, a former clerk, said. Danielle Tarantolo, another former clerk, said that Sotomayor has an unusual ability to isolate the “pressure points” of a case. Even in lighthearted matters, Sotomayor can be a grind. Before she threw the first pitch at a Yankees game, last September, she enlisted a personal-trainer friend to help her practice. When Abensohn and his fiancée asked her to officiate at their wedding, she invited them out to dinner. “She showed up with a legal pad and pen and was essentially interviewing us—how did we meet, and when did we fall in love, and why do we like each other?” Abensohn recalled.

message 5: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Great article. Her trial court ways are showing! She is certainly not the quiet type, and I suspect will continue to actively press those who come before the Court as well as her colleagues. No doubt she will have a VERY public persona as her Supreme Court evolves.

message 6: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
I think so too...I hope she does...maybe Ginsburg and her might be able to rein in some of the others. We can only hope.

Glad you liked the article.

message 7: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Her presence seems to be breathing new life into Justice Stevens. Who knows, it might be enough to keep him hanging on for another term. He has got to be feeling his age and will certainly retire with enough time to insure a Dem POTUS to nominate his replacement. We'll also have to hope that Ginsburg's health holds up. Justice Sotomayor will keep it lively throughout, that seems clear. The dynamic of the Court is bound to change, perhaps significantly, over the next 2-3 years by virtue of the changing personalities, if nothing else.

And you are soooo right about your observation of her lawyerly ways influencing her personal approach to things. I have worked with lawyers for longer than I care to admit and they all do this, constantly. The litigators depose you and the business lawyers want to negotiate everything. I love 'em but sometimes it drives me nuts!

message 8: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 06, 2010 04:46PM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
There is another saying..what came first..the personality or the profession.

I think lawyers are born that way. I just love the fact she brought a yellow legal pad to dinner.

message 9: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Does religious affiliation matter anymore in the appointment process? Some interesting insights from our pals at The Washington Post. Highlighting that Justice Stevens is about to turn 90, we can reasonably expect the next appointment is likely to be needed sooner rather than later.

message 10: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Yes, I think it still does...I think Sandra Day may have it right. No matter what Scalia or Alito have to know that the right to have an abortion for example would come under more of a different scrutiny from Catholic Supreme Court Justices especially since the Catholic Church has become more vigilant and political in these matters..and for that matter refusing to give communion to folks like Pelosi and others because they maintain a non religious viewpoint in terms of a woman's right to a abortion. Your faith has to matter whereas this would be a public opinion. Maybe they would be brave but you have to wonder.

Great find..hard to believe that Stevens is 90. Good for him.

message 11: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
This is an interesting article in the news...I am not sure if I would deem this troubling but it certainly seems to be cover for Alito. What does anyone else thing?

message 12: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) More commentary on the POTUS v. SCOTUS spat over the Citizens United ruling. The folks at Above the Law are a touch snarky in their commentary, but they do that to provoke their opinionated and largely lawyer audience.

The book referenced by Chief Justice Roberts appears to be this one:
John Marshall Definer of a Nation by Jean Edward Smith by Jean Edward Smith

message 13: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Thank you Alisa..I will give a look at both and get back later.

message 14: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
PBS has quite a few videos worth watching regarding the US Supreme Court:

message 15: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Alisa wrote: "More commentary on the POTUS v. SCOTUS spat over the Citizens United ruling. The folks at Above the Law are a touch snarky in their commentary, but they do that to provoke their opinionated and la..."

Alise I tried to come back to look and read at the article you cited but for some reason it is not coming up.

message 16: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) i'll poke around on ATL and see if I can recover the article. odd they would take it down quickly but they rotate material pretty quickly.

message 17: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Yes, I thought it was odd too unless they got some flack about it for some reason...I did not have an opportunity to read it before my Asia trip. And was revisiting it now; and had no success in bringing it up.

Thanks for poking around.

message 18: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Ah ha! They moved it to archives, even though the month is not over yet. They move fast over there. Short and direct their writing style...try this ~

message 19: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) and welcome back from Asia. Hope you had a great trip.

message 20: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 25, 2010 08:56PM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
It really is too bad they archive things so fast...even some of the links go nowhere. But I did enjoy reading the Roberts the first Chief Justice to botch the inauguration oath. I do not think that Obama has much love for Roberts and vice versa.

Thanks for digging around. Good article about their exchange. A little shoot from the hip but enjoyable none the less.

PS: The trip was very good..but the plane travel, connections, delays interminable.

message 21: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) I seem to recall one other oath that was quietly redone. Brief mention of it in an article shortly after Obama was sworn in. Can't recall the source or the President but I think someone recent.

Pres Obama and Justice Roberts have little in common in ideology, that's for sure, and I suspect quite different in their overall approach to the law. They will disagree more like lawyers and less like politicians I suspect.

message 22: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
More than likely. I think their disagreement will be muted in keeping with both men's style.

message 23: by Alisa (last edited Apr 18, 2010 11:00AM) (new)

Alisa (mstaz) ROE v. WADE
One of the most controversial decisions handed down by The Court is in the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). At issue was a Texas law prohibiting a woman’s right to have an abortion as well as challenging the law which criminalized those who provided the procedure. The finding in Roe relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and drew the conclusion that a woman had a constitutional right to privacy.

To be sure, the decision in Roe and the question of abortion rights is polarizing. People have very strong feelings on the topic based on moral, religious, and personal beliefs. Constitutional law scholars have debated the issue ever since and, as we have witnessed in the recent debate over health care reform, it continues to be a fire-hot political issue. The debate is far from over. The decision in Roe has been challenged unsuccessfully over the last 38 years and will certainly be challenged again.

How a nominee for the US Supreme Court might vote on future challenges to Roe v. Wade is analyzed, pushed, and probed whenever someone is nominated. Those who watch decision trends and the composition of The Court consider Roe a distinguishing and pivotal issue. Justice Stevens will turn 90 in April 2010, and Justice Ginsburg, who just turned 78, has battled health issues the last few years. Justice Stevens has announced his plan to retire during the Obama administration so we know that another Supreme Court nomination process will unfold in the next few years. Stevens is one of the most liberal members of The Court, and there is sure to be a great deal of scrutiny over who will replace him. Roe will be in the spotlight during that process.

The point of this post is not to debate pro-life or pro-choice questions. Related readings, definitely. One selection that folks may find interesting was written by the crafter of the pro-choice position in Roe and the woman who argued the case before the Supreme Court, Sarah Weddington. Sarah was 27 years old and Roe was her first contested case out of law school. She took on the representation pro bono.

Whenever the next SCOTUS nominee is named, we are sure to see this issue raised almost instantly.

The link to the text of the Roe v. Wade official opinion ~

and the book ~
A Question of Choice by Sarah Weddington by Sarah Weddington

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion.
Becoming Justice Blackmun Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey by Linda Greenhouse by Linda Greenhouse

message 24: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 28, 2010 06:08PM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod excellent post.

Yes, I think that this will be an issue when nominating any Court justice now and/or in the future. I often wonder if the fact that this was such a polarizing case led to there being so many Catholics on the court.

It is odd that in this body there seems to be a preponderance of justices who belong to this religion. I often wonder if this is by happenstance or whether folks who are opposed to the right to choose in the legislative branch are appeased by a nominee who is Catholic (since Catholicism as an organized religion which is against abortion in all circumstances).

You are also correct that it dominated even the health care debate. For some reason, it is an issue which is a lightning rod for rigorous debate at its best and violence at its worst. Oddly the right to life debate has led to horrendous acts in the name of life.

Even physicians have been targeted all in the name of religion.

This is an image of a young Justice Ginsburg:

message 25: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 28, 2010 06:19PM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Here is a write-up that Northwestern did about its alum Stevens who is almost 90 now:

Here is also an interesting program that NPR did on Stevens:(they call him head of the progressive wing even though he was nominated by a Republican president (Ford).

message 26: by Alisa (last edited Mar 29, 2010 02:03PM) (new)

Alisa (mstaz) None of the current justices were on the Court when Roe was decided and the majority of those were appointed by Republican Presidents. I suppose appointing a Catholic would help to curry favor among the anti-abortion advocates, but note that the current court is fairly diverse in terms of religious backgrounds. Their role as jurists require them to put aside their personal beliefs and render unbiased decisions based on the law. Easier said than done.

Great article on Stevens, I liked this quote...
"He's very independent; he doesn't follow in lock step. He's a real judge, a judge's judge. He doesn't have ideological things that he clings to." Seems to be an apt description of his service. He really has been a centrist, but in light of the current Court he looks more like a liberal. He will leave behind a fine legacy when he does retire, no question.

message 27: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Alisa, I am not sure that the "current court" is that diverse in terms of religious background.


The point being that there might have been a different outcome concerning choice given the court as it is today. I think the Citizens United case may have given us a peek.

Yes, Stevens will be missed especially now. I do think that he will retire while Obama is president during this first term. I would bet either this year or next (he only hired one law clerk). This is usually the sign (among other things)


message 28: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Stevens said in an interview earlier this year he would retire within 3 years. He has hired only one new clerk but the other present clerks have offered to stay if he decides to serve another term. I would think if he was going to retire this year he would announce soon to give time for his replacement to be confirmed before the summer Senate recess.

message 29: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
That could be; but maybe with all of the healthcare debates and votes going on...he may have felt that the timing might not be good until these things died down (he would probably be right in that case); who knows he may have already given the heads up to the president and will announce either in the summer or give it another term. Well his statements do place him retiring while Obama is president so it will be sooner rather than later. Can you imagine if he gave such an announcement now what the reaction would be from would be quite a situation I am afraid.

message 30: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Oh I expect Pres Obama's nominee to replace Justice Stevens will get much more scrutiny than Sotomayor. I think it was a foregone conclusion that Justice O'Connor's replacement was going to be a woman. I think the next nominee will tell us more about Pres Obama's perspective. It will be very interesting to see who gets nominated.

I forgot that Justice Sotomayor is Catholic as well. That does put a dent in my religious diversity comment. Oops. It's really not a question of if and how the Justices are influenced by their personal religious beliefs in rendering decisions, but rather to the point that Justice Sotomayor raised during her confirmation process: that Justices are in fact influenced by their overall life experiences. It gets back to the issue of diversification on the Bench. You can be sure the Court was very different before the arrival of Justice Marshall, for example. Lots to read about Marshall, have heard good things about Juan Williams book in particular.
Thurgood Marshall American Revolutionary by Juan Williams by Juan Williams
Up Close Thurgood Marshall by Chris Crowe by Chris Crowe

message 31: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Mar 30, 2010 11:18AM) (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Exactly..this will be a donnybrook for sure; I do not envy the next nominee because no matter how great a person they are; they will be placed through the wringer.

I think he will choose another ethnic group, a man I believe and possibly an Asian or even an hispanic: (these two probably have a crack at it I think).

Harold Hongju Koh, 53 -- The dean of Yale Law School is a Korean-American and an expert on international law and human rights. From 1998 to 2001, he served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under President Clinton. He also worked in the Department of Justice. Koh is considered a staunch liberal. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He said in an interview with the Yale newspaper that gay rights are especially important to him. Koh also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

Ruben Castillo, 54 -- A United States District Court judge in Chicago, Castillo was appointed by President Clinton in 1994. The judge is the son of a Mexican immigrant father and a Puerto Rican mother, and he was the first member of his family to graduate from college. After starting his career in private practice, Castillo became an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. During one of Castillo's prosecutions, a drug kingpin took out a contract on his life, and Castillo and his family had to be placed in police protective custody. Castillo also served as the director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The Catholic issue might eliminate Castillo although I am only presuming that he is Catholic. Both of the books look good.

Of course, Kagan from Harvard has been mentioned and Patrick but I doubt the latter and I do not think Obama will nominate another woman next until Ginsberg leaves. I could be wrong; but I think he will try to mix up the diversity of the court and select some additional minorities and not necessarily African Americans.

message 32: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) My pals at "Above The Law" just offered up a post on the topic today, actually.

I would not be at all surprised to see a woman get nominated. Surely at some point we will get to better than two out of nine and I think sooner rather than later. We are sure to see ethnic and gender diversity in Obama's nominees.

message 33: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Yes, that is an interesting idea and one that Obama might capitalize upon.

I agree that there should and will be more...but I am not sure that the next one will be a woman...but the article you posted is an interesting slant and that might stop the Republicans in their tracks.

message 34: by Alisa (last edited Mar 31, 2010 02:32PM) (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Fun at oral argument today on the high court. Apparently none of the Justices are what you might describe as a math whiz, except Breyer who *really* got into the equation calculation. Reportedly there was another good-natured exchange between Justice Sotomayor and counsel for the petitioner - he also had to correct her on the math, she took it in good stride. Justice Thomas reportedly chuckled out loud at one point, but did not otherwise break his four-year record of not asking questions or speaking. (I'm sorry, I think that is just plain odd.) Interesting little glimpse into how the Justices interact during oral argument.

message 35: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
I guess Breyer was also good at math in school and Stevens and others weren't (smile). It is also fair to say that Thomas may not have been a great choice.

Scalia was funny too; but I am not sure how subtle he is.

message 36: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Seriously though, how can you have that job and not ask questions? He is apparently exercising his right to free speech. Good grief.

message 37: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
For me and I only speak for myself..Clarence Thomas is a disappointment; I could say more but then I would most likely appear to be disrespectful of him and since I do not know him personally - I will not do that. But "good grief" seems to be a mild exclamation considering my "secret thoughts" on the subject. (smile)

message 38: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) He is a stark contrast to Justice Marshall, who he replaced. I think one of the books on Thurgood Marshall addresses this. I'll have to look it up.
I have a friend whosat next to Justice Thomas at a dinner in DC a couple years ago. She wasn't enamoured. She said Ginsburg was warm and friendly, very down to earth.

I wish Ted Olson would write a book. He has probably seen more of these Justices in action than anybody and must have great insight.

message 39: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Very true...I am personally not a Ted Olson enthusiast but he is a bright man and probably has a good handle on the court having successfully argued before it so many times.

message 40: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) I don't agree with his politics either but where would we be without the contrary viewpoint? It forces us to think. He is very bright. His wife was no shrinking violet either. She was on the plane that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. Tragic.

As much as I always want the Court, or any other body politic, to always see it my way, how boring would it be if there was no diverse opinion or opposing thought? The Court shows us a unique dynamic of reason that impacts our daily lives. and that is one reason why I find the Court so fascinating.

message 41: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
The Court is fascinating and I have to agree that in my lifetime I have been fairly satisfied with it and respected its judgement. There have been only two times that it seems to have embarrassed itself (Citizens United and the infamous Bush/Gore decision).

Agree for the most part with paragraph one. Felt very bad that he lost his wife.

message 42: by James (new)

James Thanks for that ABA post, Alisa! Yes, it is about time for the roughly 10% of the population that are GLBTQ to be openly represented on the Supreme Court as well as in other parts of government. I suspect it will make Scalia's head spin around and spew pea soup, though, and probably Alito's too; it might even get Thomas to finally wake up and participate, albeit no doubt in a negative and bigoted way.

message 43: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) James, and can you imagine what will go on in the Senate if a GLBTQ candidate is nominated?! And there is still debate over nominating women and people of color! I do wonder if Obama is still rolling around the idea of nominating Kathleen Sullivan. It would be a shame to take her name off the door of a BigLaw firm since she has so recently shattered that glass ceiling but an intriguing thought. Despite her impressive background the other thing she would get pinged for is no time on the bench.

The debate of the next nominee is going to continually pick up steam until Justice Stevens says something on the topic but especiallly since he turns 90 later this month. The trade press will keep up the chatter barring some other extraordinary event. Surely there is back room short listing going on at The White House right now, at least I hope so.

Justices are traditionally very tight lipped when someone is nominated to fill a vacancy. Still, you are spot on when you suggest there will be reaction from the conservative Justices, and all eyes will be watching them for clues.

message 44: by James (new)

James I think that Obama may be learning that it's a waste of time trying to trade concessions for cooperation in dealing with the Republicans - I hope so, anyway. He needs to just do the right thing and not worry about the fact that the right wing will scream.

In the long view, it's pretty obvious who is on the wrong side of history. Although too slow, the trend for almost the last century has been toward greater equality and acceptance of people based on ability and, as Dr. King said, the content of their character, rather than whatever demographic pigeonhole they happen to inhabit. In another generation, I trust and hope that nearly everyone will look back at the hoopla over nominations of women, minorities, etc. the same way people now look back at Jim Crow segregation and laws against interracial marriage.

I know that during my career in the Marine Corps I served with a number of female Marines and a number of GLBT Marines with whom I would have trusted my life with absolutely no hesitation, because they were smart, tough, competent, and dependable. Starting in boot camp and/or OCS, the saying was that everyone was the same color, green. The things that mattered were questions like, can this person shoot straight? Can he/she keep it together in a crisis? Will he/she stay awake on watch, keep up with the pace, etc.? Even if I had been inclined to be prejudiced - and thankfully, that's not how I was raised - it would have been a luxury I couldn't have afforded. Kind of like some racists had to shut up and accept transfusions even if they didn't know whether the blood's donor had been white.

The heritage and future of our country's legal system deserves the same kind of scrutiny of those to whom it's entrusted. People like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito can do too much harm to the public and posterity.

message 45: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) It amazes me that in the year 2010 the issues of equality are debated at all. Progress is just too slow for my taste, and when issues of equality arise in situations like this it makes me wonder if we are making any progress at all. It is beyond disappointing to me that gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation continue to be fodder during the judicial nomination process but it is the sad reality of what we still face. The focus unquestionably should be on competency and character.

James, thank you for your service to our country.

message 46: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
I agree with you Alisa..but I think unfortunately folks are still holding themselves back. Goodness you cannot make folks be treated unequally unless there are folks out there doing just that..treating folks unequally.

It seems to always be a pecking order that makes some folks feel comfortable.

message 47: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) Fueling the Justice Stevens retirement speculation. At 89 he swims every day and plays tennis 3 days a week - impressive.

message 48: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Supreme Court Facts

Youngest justice appointed: Joseph Story (age 32)

Oldest justice appointed: Horace Lurton (age 65)

Oldest justice to serve: Oliver Wendell Holmes (retired at age 90)

Shortest term as chief justice: John Rutledge (4 months, 3 days chief justice)

Shortest time in the court: Thomas Johnson (5 months, 10 days associate justice)

Longest term: William O. Douglas (36 years, 209 days)

First Catholic justice: Roger B. Taney

First Jewish justice: Louis Brandeis

First African-American justice: Thurgood Marshall

First woman justice: Sandra Day O'Connor

First Hispanic justice: Sonia Sotomayor

President to appoint the most justices: George Washington (11)

President to appoint the most justices in the 20th century: Franklin Roosevelt (9)

Presidents to appoint current justices:

Ford (Stevens); Reagan (Scalia, Kennedy); G.H.W. Bush (Thomas); Clinton (Ginsburg, Breyer); G. W. Bush (Roberts, Alito); Obama (Sotomayor)

Who knows maybe he will wait until he is the oldest judge ever on the Supreme Court; to make it as having served the longest...he would have to wait to retire to almost until 2012 and I don't think he will do that. The latest he would retire might be 2011 but I think the announcement might come this year; but he loves the job and is quite capable of continuing.

message 49: by Alisa (new)

Alisa (mstaz) More press about Justice Stevens retirement speculation.

This article from The Huffington Post identifies several potential nominees to replace him, including the current Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kathleen Sullivan also pops up on this list, but I still think she will have a hard time getting the nomination without experience on the Federal bench somewhere. For that reason a 9th Circuit nomination seems more likely for her.

The New York Times article offers more perspective directly from the Justice about his opinion drafting, capital punishment, and the proper role of The Court.

The articles from the last few days make it clear that he will make a decision very soon. He clearly still enjoys the job and feels up to it. Retirement at the end of his next term seems consistent with his public comments. There is no hint that he is influenced by how the length of service or retirement age demographic would look in his legacy.

message 50: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new)

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Yes, Kagan would be a good choice too. I understand that there is no hint of that being a factor...but it still might be one. However, I really think he would prefer to keep going as long as he is able to do the job...which clearly he is.

« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 17 18
back to top