Justice John Paul Stevens' announcement that he will retire from the Supreme Court after serving more than 34 years has not surprisingly set off what will likely be heated discussions over the makeup and future of the high court.

The Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin writes, "Stevens's unblinking devotion to human rights, civil rights, and the rights of the little guy have led him to be widely seen as the Last Great Liberal Justice, the end of a lineage that included William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and William O. Douglas. But Stevens is something else entirely. He is actually the last of the Moderate Republican Justices."

Froomkin notes that Stevens may be seen as representing or leading the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, but in actuality the high court has been on a "steady march to the far right," for long while now. "The four zealots on the Court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - engage in such extremist, blindered legal thinking that there's almost no chance any of them will ever join an even vaguely mainstream verdict."

Cliff Sloan, a former law clerk for Justice Stevens and a partner at Skadden, Arps, writes in a column for The Washington Post:

Pundits pegged him as a maverick in his early years and then, more recently, as the ‘leader of the liberal bloc' and a de facto chief justice on many issues. The most apt description, however, is the one a senator used when President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens to the Supreme Court: ‘a judge's judge.'

In a post for The Root, University of Maryland law school professor Sherrilyn Ifill writes, "Until the rightward tilt of the Court (that began in earnest under Chief Justice Rehnquist and has intensified under Chief Justice Roberts), Stevens was long considered a moderate." Ifill goes on to provide the president, not with names of potential replacements, but ideals he should consider in filling the seat. 

For Ifill, diversity, on the current high court is woefully lacking.

Ifill notes that ideology is one area that could use some diversifying:

There are no liberals on the Court - save, perhaps, Justice Ginsburg. There are however, several true conservatives on the Court. As a result, the decisions of the court - even the dissents - are overwhelmingly center-right decisions. The Court's decision-making would be enhanced by including the perspectives and thinking of a lawyer on the ideological left.

Writing for Politico, William Yeomans, an American University law school professor and former chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also notes the current high court's lack of diversity. All nine of today's justices, Yeomans writes, have come from federal appeals courts.

"Recent presidents have nominated judges to reduce uncertainty about positions the nominees might take on the court and smooth the road to confirmation," Yeomans writes.

"But," he continues, "the Supreme Court - and the nation - have paid a high price for that caution. The court's vision has narrowed, as has its understanding of our democratic processes. Too often, it seems out of touch with the law's impact on ordinary people."
Yeomans argues that President Obama should therefore select a politician to fill Justice Stevens' seat. Better yet, he writes, "a sitting senator," such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. During the ACS 2009 National Convention, Sen. Whitehouse discussed some of the qualities that shoud be considered in selecting a justice for the high court. 

"Political skills matter on the Supreme Court," he writes. "Moving legislation through the Senate and getting to five votes on the court both require building relationships, forging compromise, knowing when to fight and when to cut the best possible deal." 

[image via wikimedia.org]