Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring
(Washington) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill.
Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed “well in advance of the commencement of the court’s next term.”
The timing of Stevens’ announcement leaves ample time for the White House to settle on a successor and for Senate Democrats, who control a 59-vote majority, to conduct confirmation hearings and a vote before the court’s next term begins in October. Republicans have not ruled out an attempt to delay confirmation.
Stevens’ announcement had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday.
Throughout his tenure, which began after President Gerald Ford nominated him in 1975, Stevens usually sided with the court’s liberal bloc in the most contentious cases – those involving abortion, criminal law, civil rights and church-state relations. He led the dissenters as well in the case of Bush v. Gore that sealed President George W. Bush’s election in 2000.
Stevens began signaling a possible retirement last summer when he hired just one of his usual complement of four law clerks for the next court term. He acknowledged in several interviews that he was contemplating stepping down and would certainly do so during Obama’s presidency.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a written statement that Stevens has earned the gratitude and admiration of the American people.
“He has enriched the lives of everyone at the Court through his intellect, independence, and warm grace,” Roberts said.
Stevens informed Obama in a one-paragraph letter addressed to “My dear Mr. President,” officially received by the White House at 10:30 a.m. EDT, two minutes before the public announcement. The news came on a day when the court wasn’t in session.
Just before the court’s announcement, Obama, en route back to Washington from a trip to Prague, had called a Friday afternoon Rose Garden statement, saying the subject would be a West Virginia mine accident.
The leading candidates to replace Stevens are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, 57, and Diane Wood, 59.
Stevens’ departure will not change the court’s conservative-liberal split because Obama is certain to name a liberal-leaning replacement. But the new justice is not likely to be able to match Stevens’ ability to marshal narrow majorities in big cases.
Stevens was able to draw the support of the court’s swing votes, now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy, to rein in or block some Bush administration policies, including the detention of suspected terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, its tilt toward protecting businesses from some lawsuits and its refusal to act against global warming.
But after the arrival of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush’s appointees, Stevens more often was among the four liberal justices in dissent.
Stevens’ recent dissent in a major case involving campaign finance laws showed both the eloquence of his writing and, in his stumbling reading of his opinion in the courtroom, signs that his age might at long last be affecting him, though he remains an active tennis player and swimmer.
He is the court’s last World War II veteran and that experience sometimes finds its way into his writings, recently in a reference to Tokyo Rose, the English-speaking Japanese radio announcer who addressed U.S. soldiers in the Pacific.
Stevens had a reputation as a bright and independent federal appeals court judge when Ford, acting on a recommendation by Attorney General Edward Levi, nominated him to the Supreme Court.
His friendly manner of questioning lawyers who appeared before the court could not hide Stevens’ keen mind. His questions often zero in on the most telling weaknesses of a lawyer’s argument and the case’s practical effect on everyday people.
A pleasant, unassuming man, Stevens has been a prolific and lucid writer. For many years, he wrote more opinions each court term than any other justice.
Most justices let their law clerks write the first drafts of opinions, but Stevens has used his clerks as editors.
He’d write the first draft and submit it to the clerks for comment. “That’s when the real fun begins,” Stevens once told a visitor. “The give and take can get pretty fierce.”
As a result, his opinions have reflected his personal writing style – a conversational one that contrasted sharply with the dry, dull efforts of some other justices.
He said recently that one sign that it would be time to retire would be an inability to churn out those first drafts. But he insisted in recent days that he was still writing them.
Day One: Prop 8 trial saw some humor, lots of heart
(San Francisco) The trial to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court got underway Monday in San Francisco, but the opening acts were upstaged in Washington, D.C. just minutes before the proceeding began.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the full court to weigh in on the fairness of allowing videotaped …
Justice Ginsburg hospitalized; became ill at work
(Washington) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 76-year-old Supreme Court justice who underwent pancreatic cancer surgery earlier this year, fell ill at work after a treatment for anemia and was hospitalized overnight.
Ginsburg was taken to Washington Hospital Center at 7:45 p.m. EDT Thursday and would remain there for the night as a …
History Is on My Side, Says Calif. Justice Who Voted Against Gay-Marriage Ban
Carlos Moreno stood alone in May when he dissented from the decision upholding Proposition 8. But the California Supreme Court justice says history will prove him right — that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is illegal discrimination.
“Someday at some point my dissent will be the majority view in California,” he said during an interview in his San Francisco chambers late Wednesday. “I think that’s where the law is headed.”
“Equal protection is either equal or it’s not,” he added. “It’s not the kind of thing you can chip away at.”
Moreno, one of four justices to back same-sex marriage last year and the sole vote against Prop 8 this year, took time to talk to The Recorder about his votes, his brief moment on the Obama administration’s short list for the nation’s highest court, and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s controversial “wise Latina” comment.
Moreno’s dissent in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364, came at a touchy time for him. He had been contacted by the Obama administration a week earlier as a possible replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Since President Obama has officially stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, it could be assumed Moreno’s position on marriage and Prop 8 might be troublesome.
But, Moreno said, Obama’s vetters didn’t ask him how his Prop 8 vote — which wasn’t yet public — would go.
“They just asked if there were any high-profile cases — past or present, including on the trial court — that would be the kind of case that would draw attention.”
See History Is on My Side, Says Calif. Justice Who Voted Against Gay …
Law.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-is-on…
Vacouver couple forced to pay fine after harrassing gay neighbors
(Vancouver) Patricia and Alexander Harrison have been ordered by a British Columbia supreme court justice to pay $15,000 (approximately $13,000 U.S.) for harassing and tormenting a gay couple who lives next door to them.
Rod Boggs and Bill Hart, who have lived in the four unit condo since 2006, said …
NY judge tosses Senate case back to lawmakers
(Albany) A judge says he won’t rule on last week’s takeover of the New York Senate by a coalition of Republicans and dissident Democrats, which leaves gay marriage and other issues up in the air.
State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara is dismissing the case, saying it’s improper for the court …
Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around father’s gay friends
The Georgia Supreme Court tossed out part of a Fayette County court’s decision that kept a divorced gay father from allowing his children to interact with his gay friends, according to a ruling today from the state Supreme Court.
In the ruling, Justice Robert Benham wrote the high court acknowledges that trial courts have the discretion to “limit a parent’s exposure of the children to certain people, if it can be shown that the children would be adversely affected.”
In this case, the Supreme Court justices rejected Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ ban on having the gay father bring his gay friends around his children. Edwards has been nominated to fill the a seat on the state Supreme Court after Chief Justice Leah Sears steps down at the end of June.
“The blanket prohibition against exposure of the children to members of the gay and lesbian community who are acquainted with husband is another matter,” says today’s opinion. “There is no evidence in the record before us that any member of the excluded community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by exposure to any member of that community.”
See Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around … Sovo.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ga-supreme-co…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Slim on LGBT Cases, Sotomayor Wins Gay Praise
Video: Who is Sotomayor? KRQE.com
Who is Sotomayor? KRQE.com
No, Sonia Sotomayor Isn’t Gay. But Is She Gay Friendly? Queerty
Gay Activists Applaud Sotomayor Nomination On Top Magazine * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/slim-on-lgbt-…
Same-Sex Unions Supplant Abortion As Social Priority for Conservatives In Fight Over High Court Pick
As President Obama prepares to name his first Supreme Court justice, conservatives in Washington are making clear that his nominee will face plenty of questions during the confirmation process on the legal underpinnings of same-sex marriage.
In addition to shedding more light on the nation’s most contentious unfolding social drama and legal frontier, Senate Republicans say the debate could provide a road map to an Obama nominee’s judicial philosophy.
“It may reflect the degree to which they think that they’re not bound by the classical meaning of the Constitution, and that they may want to let a personal agenda go beyond what the law said,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Questions on social issues in confirmation hearings have tended for the past 30 years to focus squarely on abortion, with partisans from both sides poring over a nominee’s writings and rulings and presidents typically denying that any “litmus test” was employed in the selection.
Same-sex marriage carries the same freighted potential to dominate a hearing, conservatives say.
“It is now the flash point where politics and law meet. That flash point used to be abortion. I don’t think anybody thinks that’s going to be the flash point in this nomination,” said William A. Jacobson, a Cornell University law professor and conservative blogger.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), another GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, said conservatives are particularly eager to avoid a Supreme Court ruling akin to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide and has divided the country ever since. “I don’t think members of the court, or any of us, ever want to see a decision like that again,” Hatch said. Obama assured the senator in a recent meeting that he will not pick a “radical” to replace Souter, but Hatch added: “Presidents always say that. That’s why we have the hearing process.”
Same-sex marriage gained national resonance in the wake of last month’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized the practice in that state. And in the two weeks since Justice David H. Souter announced his retirement, Maine also legalized same-sex marriage, becoming the fifth state to do so; the New Hampshire legislature sent a marriage-equality bill to the governor; the New York State Assembly approved gay-marriage legislation; and the District of Columbia voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Those actions, in so short a time, have outstripped the ability of Democrats in Washington to stake out their public position on the issue. MORE at Washington Post
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/same-sex-unio…
