• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • EXCLUSIVE: Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Retirement of Justice Stevens

    As we mentioned earlier today, Judge Andrew Napolitano, author and Fox News analyst, sat down with us this week to discuss a number of issues. In addition to the tea party and Obamacare, we also talked about what it would mean for Justice Stevens to retire and what type of nominee we could expect from President Obama.

    In light of today’s announcement that Justice Stevens is indeed stepping down, we are posting that full exchange for you here. In the interview, Judge Napolitano was candid in his analysis:

    “[Stevens'] views would likely be the same as whoever replaces him. So the liberal versus conservative, Constitutionalist versus big government coalitions on the Court would not change. However, what will change is that you are replacing someone who is 90 with someone who is 45.

    I would expect the President to nominate the most liberal, radical, person that he can find because he is unlikely to ever have the numerical superiority in the Senate that he has today.”

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to EXCLUSIVE: Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Retirement of Justice Stevens

    1. bill marshall, Scurr says:

      The most fundamental questions that must be asked and answered are" Do you believe that there are limits to Federal authority under either the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clause?

      They MUST NOT be allowed to evade the question.

    2. bill marshall, Scurr says:

      Every Senator must ask – and deserve an answer to " Do you see any limitations to either the Commerce clause or the Necessary and Proper clause – to the power of the Federal Government's authoriy?"

    3. Rich Stewart, Carlis says:


      I wish those questions really mattered to the Dems in the Senate but I believe that they have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a 100% partisan, Kool-Aid drinking doubt that (a) any of them that even have the slightest clue as to the absolute wisdom of the intent the Founding Fathers don't give a damn about it, (b) a number of them have neither a clue nor the capacity to understand the Constitution and/or wisdom of the intent of the Founding Fathers and (c) they will vote in lockstep for whatever radical, over the far side of the world, nut job the Obama administration decides to put forth.

      I believe the Judge is correct in that they will put forth the most radical thing they can dredge up. I'm beginning to think that the Obama crowd is actually beginning to understand that they unmasked themselves too quickly and too clearly, that the jig is up for them, so they figure they may as well do as much damage as they can before the next Congress is sworn in.

      If they had a lick of sense, which they don't, they would put forth the least controversial, yet left leaning, candidate they could find and try not to infuriate the electorate more than they already have. So far they have not done anything to indicate that they have a lick of sense so I don't expect them to start now. Just as well, the more they stir the pot, the more they cause even greater numbers of citizens of this great Republic to resolve to put a stop to their insanity.

    4. Kelly Bushing says:

      Health Care law suites by States, is exactly the kind of wasted energy that Rahm Emmanuel expects the conservatives to follow. Meanwhile, the massive public support for taking power pack from the Federal Government that Health Care has created will miss the last great chance to rally all Americans to call for a State held Constitutional Convention as provided for in Article 5 of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers provided a means to keep the Feds from becoming tyrants, it is called Article 5 of the US Constitution. Of course the Republican party knows this but have decided to use the current outrage to regain power in the Federal Government, business as usual as opposed to "change the game" Constitutional Convention. A constitutional ammendment that limited all Federal Senators and Congressmen to 2 terms would be a simple Pan-American Ammendment that 36 state Legislatures could unite and pass. Too bad Rahm is smarter than all the conservatives leaders, talk show hosts, who have no plan to make meaningful change to the US Constitution. Rahm Obama will outsmart the conservatives as they have power to start wars, crisis upon crisis wherein the public will support thier government despite their communistic one world government currency ambitions.

    5. LT says:

      People can run their own lives. Most people are honest and peaceful and only want to enjoy their lives. Let’s vote to ban all governments. Think this is unrealistic or stupid? From about 700-900AD a Nordic country, I forget which, functioned without government and it worked.

    6. Jeanette Walker says:

      How can I contact Judge Napolitano to ask him a question?

    7. Mildred Zilka Sanfor says:

      May God watch over and keep you safe and for you having the courage to speak out. Wake up America; Quit being sheep

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.