The History Book Club discussion
SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S.
>
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

One of the books on my to-read list is The Nine. I plan to get to it by the summer at least.

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.
Thank you for your wonderful add.
Here is an article about Justice Sotomayer in the New Yorker written by Laura Collins:
It is titled NUMBER NINE.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
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.
It is titled NUMBER NINE.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
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.

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.
Glad you liked the article.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Yes, I think it still does...I think Sandra Day may have it right. No matter what Scalia or Alito say..you 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.
Great find..hard to believe that Stevens is 90. Good for him.
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?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35790685/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35790685/...

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/barack...
The book referenced by Chief Justice Roberts appears to be this one:

PBS has quite a few videos worth watching regarding the US Supreme Court:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/
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.
Alise I tried to come back to look and read at the article you cited but for some reason it is not coming up.

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.
Thanks for poking around.

It really is too bad they archive things so fast...even some of the links go nowhere. But I did enjoy reading the article...is 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.
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.

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.

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 ~ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts...
and the book ~

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion.

Alisa...an 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:
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:

Here is a write-up that Northwestern did about its alum Stevens who is almost 90 now:
http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/...
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).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/...
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).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

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.
Alisa, I am not sure that the "current court" is that diverse in terms of religious background.
See:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
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)
Bentley
See:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
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)
Bentley

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 Congress..it would be quite a situation I am afraid.

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.



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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id...
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.
Scalia was funny too; but I am not sure how subtle he is.

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)

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.
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.

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


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.

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.

James, thank you for your service to our country.
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.
It seems to always be a pecking order that makes some folks feel comfortable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36162282/...
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.
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.

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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04...
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/...
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.
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.
Books mentioned in this topic
Great Expectations (other topics)The Sun Also Rises (other topics)
To Have and Have Not (other topics)
Ernest Hemingway Reads (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Grisham (other topics)William Shakespeare (other topics)
Ernest Hemingway (other topics)
Joseph J. Ellis (other topics)
Vladimir Nabokov (other topics)
More...
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.