Perhaps the interpretations of Justice Stevens' intentions are, to paraphrase a famous quote, an exaggeration. But his turning 90 in 2010 would seem to be good enough a reason to take the prospect very seriously.

Most of the debate over his replacement will no doubt swirl around the usual hot button social issues. But I hope that the economic ones will not be pushed too far aside, since they will have an impact on the social welfare of everyone.

One section in the wiki article suggests that Stevens sided consistently with the federal government in cases concerning the Commerce Clause which gives the federal government rights to .

He also co-wrote an opinion that affirmed the government's method of taxing tips in a case concerning a San Francisco restaurant. Cases like this could be very important in determining how such things as health insurance reform will be paid for since such employees are effectively self-employed and in the USA often do not have health insurance. Health care reform was not a big issue then but may now require renewed emphasis.

One commonly held assumption about the replacement of Justice Stevens with which I deeply disagree is that it will make little difference in the liberal-conservative balance on the Court.

His retirement is crucial not so much for the political effect it might have on Court decisions as for its timing. Two relatively conservative Republicans were appointed by George W. Bush in the form of John Roberts and Samuel Alito (Both of whom have ruled that money not only talks but is the same as talk when it exchanges hands.)

Though the former replaced a deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist, the latter replaced a Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, like Stevenson and David Souter before him, chose their time to leave the office.

That decision is the last, and arguably the most important, political decision that a Supreme Court Justice can make.

By choosing to retire now Stevens - whether intended or not - has effectively decided who shall replace him. I for one am grateful that he made that decision now rather than earlier. Now it is up to Obama to decide whether he shall continue to try to appease the right and allow politics to trump his stated core values.

If indeed Eric Holder is seeking modifications in the Miranda Warning and Elena Kagan will be the administrations nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy to be left by Stevens, then it may be more than idle speculation that Obama has vetted her views on presidential powers enough to conclude that he can make such adjustments to a law based on fundamental constitutional rights in a manner that would be acceptable to at least one supreme court justice.

The Court precedent states that This already excludes those who are not "indigent", so it will be all legal citizens who are directly effected by such an adjustment. To weaken that law in order to catch terrorists may cast a wide net - a more intrusive net than the FISA laws which only govern surveillance.

Still my greater concern about a new justice is their willingness to allow referreeing of our non "free" market.

I was watching a show on TV One with Roland Martin yesterday...its like a Black "Meet the Press" and there were people talking about Elena Kagan when she was at Harvard and how her record on diversity is THIN!! They said she picked pretty ultra conservative white men for tenure while she was at Harvard, skipping over other qualified minorities. I'm so not sold on her, lesbian (rumored) or not. And quite frankly, it would be nice if the next nominee was an asian or a black woman.

I saw one report where she was praised for bringing in the conservatives. I guess it's a context issue....are conservative white men underrepresented at Harvard Law? It really just goes to show how strong the dominant culture is.....white guys are now victims....talk about co-opting the argument.

Is here sexuality a rumor? I know people that went to or had dealings with Harvard Law and she was apparently quite open, including her partner in her professional life. I know this is a pipe dream, but it would be nice if she could be out and not have it be an issue.

The spin is that she is someone that can convince others and would be able to bring five Justices together in a majority, much like Kennedy.

Knowing that other than me there is no one out there that would be a 100% acceptable nominee I guess it's just a matter of do the positives outweigh the negatives.

But I agree that more diversity on the Court will benefit everyone. The court should mirror the greater society.

I don't know if there is an underrepresentation of conservative white men at Harvard, but there is surely no underrepresentation of white men at Harvard. Anywho.. this article goes into the breakdown of her hiring practices and thin publishing history, which means that people need to grill her during this process. At least with the others they had a pretty good record and paper trail to know what their ideology is, but for me I need to know how this woman is going to judge since barring some tragic death she could be serving for at least 25 years.

On Elena Kagan

Great article MDTerp. I really want to hear more of her "advocacy" for diversity. I have heard her described as a "fierce" advocate of GLBT rights, I would hope she would be a similar advocate for all civil rights.