TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPROVAL: JUDGE OJETTA THOMPSON, JUDGE ANN WILLIAMS AND JUDGE LEAH SEARS

Justice John Paul Stevens (who turns 90 this month) submitted the following letter to President Obama, indicating he would retire from the bench effective when the United States Supreme Court closes its 2009–2010 term in late June or early July, to go on hiatius before returning on the 1ST Monday in October.

 

“My dear Mr. President:

Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 D.S.C. § 371(b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.

Most respectfully yours,

John Paul Stevens”

 

With the upcoming June/July 2010 resignation of Justice Stevens from the United States Supreme Court, a slot will need to be filled with a newly appointed justice by President Barack Obama.

All justices who have been appointed have come to the SCOTUS with varied mindsets that have colored the decisions they have rendered. Many (Chief Justice Roger Taney) have shown racist, sexist and downright inhumane callous disregard for the laws of the land, as it is the Supreme Court which has the last say on what laws will be enacted and how those laws will ultimately affect us all. Some have been fair in their decisions concerning our rights (Warren Court; Justice Thurgood Marshall).

But, what I look most for in a potential candidate on the Court is how they have tackled such issues as abortion, crime, police brutality, immigration, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amemndment. No justice is so free from prejudices that they will not bring baggage with them to the Supreme Court, but, it is in how they interpret the U.S. Constitution fairly and equitably, that will show the type of caliber they have in becoming a part of the highest court in the land. Not whose race, gender, religion, or creed they have a problem with, but, the adherence to the ever evolving Constitution and in rendering down decisions that neither curtail the freedoms of American citizens, nor destroy the “peace, traquility, and general welfare” of future citizens.

So, President Obama, when you consider whom you will appoint to the SCOTUS, think carefully on the person who will sit on a court for possibly the remainder of their life, what type of capabilites and experience in dispensing decisions and what type of justice they will be on the many cases that will be brought to them for final consideration.

Therefore, I suggest these names of some qualified judges that you should give consideration to:

-Honorable Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, the 57 year-old Rhode Island Superior Court Justice, who is the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and a former Rhode Island Superior Court justice.

 

–Honorable Ann Claire Williams, the 59 year-old U.S. Seventh Circuit Appellate Judge and globally acclaimed legal scholar. Among her many public service efforts, Judge Williams led and taught at the first Kenyan Women’s Trial Advocacy Program for domestic violence attorneys. Judge Williams has also been a prosecutor and faculty member at both Northwestern and John Marshall Schools of Law.

 

 

–Honorable Leah Ward Sears, the 55-year-old former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Georgia. Judge Sears was the first Black American female Chief Justice in the United States. When she was first appointed as justice in 1992 by then-Governor Zell Miller, she became the first woman and youngest person to sit on the Supreme Court of Georgia.

 

Notable decisions of Judge Sears:

 

In Fox v. State (2000), Justice Sears held that the warrantless search of a probationer’s house by a police officer (as opposed to a probation officer) is unconstitutional. (Fourth Amendment)

Justice Sears dissented from the Gibson v. Turpin (1999). The majority held that, as with non-death cases, there is no federal or state constitutional right to state-appointed and funded counsel for habeas corpus proceedings for murderers sentenced to death. Justice Sears would have found that such a right to appointed counsel exists for habeas proceedings for capital defendants. Justice Sears stated: “The official taking of a human life is the ultimate government exercise of control and power over individual liberty. If it is to be done, it must be done cautiously, dispassionately, soberly, and fairly. And fundamental fairness demands that a condemned prisoner have the benefit of competent counsel [on habeas].” (Sixth Amendment)

Sears dissented from the majority opinion in the case of Wilson v. State(1999. Justice Sears argued that death by electrocution is unconstitutional and inconsistent with evolving standards of decency. Alternatively, she would have held the decision until the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue in a case it was then considering (Eighth Amendment)

Justice Sears dissented from the majority’s opinion in Lumpkin v. Johnson (1998). Justice Sears argued to overturn a murder conviction after concluding that the system by which cases are assigned to trial judges is impermissible. (Fourtenth Amendment)

Justice Sears dissented from the majority’s opinion in McIntyre v. State (1995). Justice Sears argued that the defendant’s murder conviction should have been overturned because a judge was substituted in the middle of trial. (Fourteenth Amendment)

The above justices are highly qualified, and nomination of either one of them would be one more example of the change of which you spoke so much of during your presidential campaign.

Just a few suggestions, submitted for your approval, President Obama.

Please, think carefully and wisely on your final decision.

The people of America need justices who will look out for their constitutional rights, and not run roughshod over them.

God knows we have had more than our fair share of having our rights curtailed, stifled, suffocated and just plain annihilated.