the president planned to be speaking to the american people on the subject of the mining tragedy in west virginia, but now we expect of course we will hear from him in some form or fashion, or perhaps a favor statement, or what have you, on this subject as well. we do have the regs nation -- resignation letter that just stevens submitted to the president, it begins my dear mr. president, having concluded it would be in the best interest 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 active service as an associate justice, effective the next day after the court rises for the summer recess this year, most respectfully yours, john paul stevens. of course this is not a tremendous surprise, jon. justice stevens had been hinting he was considering retirement, he had hired one law clerk where traditionally a justice who plans to stay on for the next term would hire four, former justices are entitled to one law clerk, so it all seems to -- seemed to come together. of course, justice was appointed in 1975, nominate i by president gerald ford, a republican, yet justice stevens went on to become identify with the liberal block of the court, and that often happens. we often see presidents appoint justices who turn out to be very different than the justice that the president thought he was going to get. that happened in the case of president eisenhower with earlaway, with nixon, with harry blackman who went on to author the roe v wade opinion. we don't know who president obama plans to nominate but his aides say we can expect to hear the short list of names bandied about as we did when president obama nominated the his has panic to the court, justice sonya sotomayor. jon: interesting timing of this, in the administration, he assures another liberal will take his place, but it's been pointed out with the congressional elections coming up this fall and the public already pretty steamed by much of what's gone on in the first year of the obama administration, the president may have to moderate the choice that he might otherwise make. >> reporter: that's true, and of course, that has to do with the realities of the balance of power in the senate which, of course, was altered by the election of scott brown in massachusetts in january. if the president knows he has limited capital to spend on this nomination, the senators know, too, they have limited capital to spend on these things and presented with the right choice, they can recognize they have limited capital indeed. that was certainly the case with judge sotomayor when she was nominated and the republicans put up symbolic resistance against her because there was a widespread consensus she was going to be confirmed and the senators were reluctant to spend too much capital at that time. of course nominations and senate confirmation -- confirmations are unpredictable things. in 1975 when justice steve eps was nominated he was confirmed nine #-nothing in an era that had far less polarization in senate and of course the word abortion was not mention mentioned at appears. but it's not just the recognize -- the president who recognizes he has limited capital to spend here. martha: on the foam is tim o'brien, han attorney who has covered the supreme court for two decades, he knows as well as anybody does. tim, good to hear from you today. let's look forward and touch on what james and john were talking about there. if you're advising president obama at this point, where do you go fill coughcle as a nominee, is there any appetite in congress for a fight? >> i think the president is going to going to try to appoint somebody who shares his philosophy about the law, which is parallel to the philosophy of john paul stevens and if there's going to be a fight over that, i think the administration is prepared for that. we talked about stevens as the liberal anchor on the core. we should keep in mind, however, when he did join the court in 1975, he moved it sharply to the center. replacing what the old-time great liberals on the court's history, william o. douglas. the fact is it's not so much john paul stevens who's changed but the court has changed, becoming much more conservative. from 1967 to 1992, there were no democratic appointments to the supreme court. you had about # or ten republican appointments to the court. so it's the court that has really changed. i think that president obama will be looking for somebody who shares many of justice stevens' views, and i don't think it's going to be hard to find that person. the real challenge will be to find somebody who has justice stevens' political skills, his negotiating scilts, his consensus building skills. those are the skills that i think justice stevens will be moss remembered for. >> tim, hang with us if you will. jon has jut guest. jon: joining us on the phone, former supreme court nominee, robert bjork, whose nomination during the reagan administration became such a controversial one, eventually that nomination voted down by the senate. judge bjo -- judge work -- judge bjork, your reaction. >> in the first place, i disagree with tim, that the court has changed. the court hasn't become more conservative. there have been nominations by conservative presidents but the men nominated don't behave conservatively and that's certainly true of stevens who took a sharp break to the left when he got on the court. jon: he changed his stripes, do you think? >> yeah. as a court of appeals judge, he was quite moderate. as soon as he got on that the supreme court, he began to behave differently, very definitely. now, i should say that i like the man, he's a very likable fellow, i consider him a friend, nonetheless, he's not a model for a judge that i would choose. jon: let's talk about the possible nominees. your book, "slouching towards gommorah, liberalism and america's decline cloo cline" says it all about your position towards the supreme court. what would you expect from president obama? is he going to going to nominate a more liberal member or will he with congressional elections coming up be forced to moderate the kind of person he might nominate? >> i don't think he's shown any sign of compromise on issues so far, and i don't expect he will this time. he has the votes, and i think he'll have them, he'll exercise him them and he'll get the nominee through and the republicans will feel kind of helpless and won't put up too much of a fight because they know it's a loser to begin with. jon: chris wallace said a moment ago the republican senate tends to go along with democratic presidents, or republicans in the senate, more so than democrats in the senate tend to go along with nominees put forward by republican presidents. do you agree? >> yes i do. jon: and in terms of the names that are out there now, for instance, elena kagan, are you making any bets as to who this president might nominate? >> no, i'm not. there with a wide variety of people. it depends on what he's looking for. he may want to be the first president to have three women on the supreme court. or he may have some other agenda. every time one of these comes up, the president seems to me to strain to have a first. jon: she was a solicitor general as were you. is that an important qualification, do you think? >> yeah, it's -- it should disclose something about your legal ability because you argue all kinds of cases, pont cases, and from a variety of fields. jon: judge robert bork from the u.s. circuit of appeals, george bork, thank you. jane: chris wallace of fox news sunday has been listening listening with us. your reaction to what judge bork said. >> it's interesting hearing him talk, of course he is and everyone agreed that he was an absolutely brilliant jurist. there was never any question about his qualifications to serve on the court, it was obviously a lot of question about his ideology, and he's the poster child for the appointment of nominees, it really had been much more of a -- as i say, there was a general feeling in this town , the president had certain prerogatives, one was to name his supreme court nominees, and they were confirmed generally, but that sure didn't go for him in 1986 when ronald reagan named him and teddy kennedy went -- teddy kennedy went to the senate and excore indicated -- excoriated him and many think in a bad way in the very hours of his election and that started a whole different process now in terms of these nominees because once a president nominate someone, there's a huge effort made to -- by the president, obviously they have a head start, and they know who it's going to be, by the president and his party to defend that nominee and to define that nominee for the public before the opposition can rise against the nominee and make the contrary case. you know, we talk about sonya sotomayor and one of the things that was so -- whether that was the reason or not, the president clearly wanted to make -- to appoint the first hispanic to the court but it made it a much tougherrer -- tougher political matter for republicans to oppose her because she was hispanic, that's an important voting block and a lot of republicans didn't want to be seen as antihispanic by voting against sonya sotomayor, so you can appoint somebody who is pretty liberal. you don want much a paper trail and you want to have someone on the other side to vote against. sonya sotomayor is an example of a skillful choice as the president's nominee and be sure they'll look for somebody who represents the his idea yolg -- ideology but won't kick all storm in the senate. jane: we got a letter from the senator, patrick leahy, he said i expect the president to continue consulting both sides of the aisle as he considers this important nomination, he goes on tocy the decisions of the supreme court are often made by only five individuals but they impact the daily lives of each and ef one of us. -- every one of us, all senators should advise and scoant and give fair and thorough consideration to justice stevens' successor. when we look forward to a potential pick here, what is the importance do you think of going for yet another woman, potentially another minority or has the president gotten that off the table with justice sotomayor? >> i don't think it's as pressing as it was. with the history of two women on the court, sandra day o'connor and rawt baider ginsburg, to take a step backward, to eight men and one woman, that was something that clearly -- i'm sure there were a number of people in the president's group, in his liberal base, who wanted to see another woman on the report, ruth baider ginsburg made it clear she wanted another woman on court and also, and i must say president bush also talked about this a lot, the idea of the first hispanic, that was an important barrier, perhaps the latest barrier that needed -- in the minds of both conservatives and liberals, to be broken. i'm not sure that there is as obvious a breaking of a barrier this time, either, in items of a third woman on the court. this would be the first time there had been three. but i'm not sure that it's nearly as pressing. i'm not sure the president will feel the need to do something. i got to tell you something about patrick leahy, the senate judiciary chairman. to give you a sense of just how political this has become, back in 2005, he was complaining when he was in the minority and republicans ran the judiciary committee about them ram rodding choices through. there's now a circuit appeals court nominee for the democrats, goodwin liu, and the republicans are complaining that there's more information that's come out, that he didn't disclose all of his writings, and this they should slow it down, and now that leahy is chairman, he said absolutely not, we're going ahead with this hearing, so who wheels the gavel determines a great deal of what happens on capitol hill. jane: chris wallace, fox news sunday, we'll get back to you as details break on this. jon: justice john paul stevens telegraphed his retirement in part through the appointment of his clerks. coming up, we'll be talking with a former clerk for the now retiring supreme court justice. also, bombshell news out of washington. bart stupak, a man who became both hero and goat to both sides in the health care debate makes a big announcement. we'll have it coming up. ñwpú@ jon: a fox news alert, justice john paul stevens, who has served more than a third of a century on the u.s. preem court appointed -- nominated i should say in 1975, by former president gerald ford, justice stevens announced he is retiring after the court completes its work this summer. let's talk about his legacy with diane marie amon, former clerk to justice stevens from 1998-1989. it's my understanding diane that it was telegraphed that he might be retiring when he only put forward the name of one clerk to nominate this time around as opposed to the usual four. that had everybody in washington saying he intends to step down. >> well, it did send washington aflutter, and his response was rather humorous, i think he said i'm surprised everyone is surprised, i'm no spring chicken, after all. >> no one in america really gets to know these supreme court justice, they are generally very private people. tell us about the man. >> well, i think the best way to describe the justice is a gentle person's gentle person. he is incredibly civil, almost courtly in the way that he treats everyone from his clerk to the lawyers before him. he has an indisputeably brilliant mind of great recalls for cases, and a very unique and important way of thinking through some of the most important legal issues of our day. jon: your phrase is echoed precisely by someone you might not expect who would be praise ago man who's considered one of the most liberal justices on the supreme court right now, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell says in his release about the retirement, i respect his devotion to the institution and the gentlemenly manner in which he carried out his work. is he from another era we might not see again on the supreme court when it comes to political division? >> i hope not. you'll recall that justice stevens was the justice appointed right after watergate by the post watergate president ford, and in some ways he was put on the cord to -- court that could bring us together after another period of partisan division, and i hope that his replacement is able to fill that role as well as the other important roles that justice stevens has held on the court. jon: diane marie ammond who served an important role for one of the clerks for justice stevens, thank you. jane: another big story breaking in washington this hour. we're waiting to see congressman bart stupak, he's a michigan democrat what's come under intense fire for ultimately voting in favor of the president's health care reform plan, and he brought a whole block of votes with him. we're told he will announce he will not be running for reelection. jon: a fox news alert and just about exactly two hours from now president obama will step out into the rose garden and address the nation. we are told the topic is to be the west virginia mining tragedy, however, with the somewhat sudden announcement this morning that long serving justice john paul stevens will retire from the u.s. supreme court at the end of its current term, we expect the president will have something to say about that. you'll certainly want to stay glued to fox news channel for that announcement again from the rose guarden -- garden two hours from now. jane: "happening now", preparation for a news conference from bart stupak of michigan, he has been under such heat for his vote in favor of health care reform, he's the one who ended up switching his position after getting a side agreement on abortion language from the president. we expect that congressman stupak will say he will not be running for reelection. we're told that the president called the congressman on wednesday, asking him to reconsider. the tea party has been holding rallies opposing the vote. they launched this ad. >> congressman bart stupak, you've betrayed our constitution, you sold us out on the health care vote and now it's time for you to pay the political price. jane: chad pigrim is our senior producer on capitol hill. explain how this went down. >> reporter: besides the election of massachusetts senator scott brown there was no name more closely associated with the health care reform debate than bart stupak and that's because of the stupak amendment which was designed to build a fire wall between abortions and the use of taxpayer money to pay for them. they were hearing some rattling starting at the end of the debate that stupak might not stand for reelection, there were calls as you said from the president, the speaker of the house to stupak, also john dingell, who is the most senior member of the house and the dean of michigan's congressional delegation, asking him to stand for election here. he really incurred the wrath of prolife and prochoice voters, also, as you said, the tea party folks were rallying all over michigan, promising to defeat them, and then this was the most interesting lements, the debt threats, the phone calls and hate mail, some of the most profeign, foul language you can imagine and bart stupak is a guy here who he might have had a tougher race this time around, president obama got about 15 percent of the vote in that district, he won reelection overwhelmingly last time around, even in a republican year, in 2002, he still got 67 percent of the vote, but this might have been too much for bart stupak to stand this time around. jane: what are the consequences for democrats? >> it immediately throws this seat into a tossup category, probably at the very least. it's not somebody strong on the other side sort of waiting in the bullpen to succeed him. there is a senior democrat respect source telling me this is a disappointment but it's not insurmountable by any stretch and republicans are raring to go here. ken splain, a spokesman for the republican national committee who is in charge of getting republicans in the house, said after selling his soul to pelosi, stupak said no and her hold on the speaker's gavel is loosening by the day. jane jeanne chad pergram is our cap it will hill senior producer. thank you, we should be seeing congressman stupak in his home state of michigan to make this announcement and explain what went into this thinking just about within hour from now, and we'll take you there live. jon: also "happening now" an end of an air why the u.s. supreme court, one of the -- one of the longest serving judges ever, john paul stevens announces he will retire, that allows president obama to make his second appointment to the nation's highest court. who will he pick? that's the guessing name in washington right now. also former speaker of the house, newt gingrich is not pulling any punches, the former history professor says this president is the most radical in history. that word came at a republican conference that some say is basically a tryout for gop presidential hopefuls. sarah palin will speak today. our own carl cameron is there to cover it in new orleans. we'll have more. jon: a fox news alert and one of the longest serving justices in u.s. history is retiring. john paul stevens, sending president obama a letter this morning, saying that he will call it quits at the end of this supreme court term. let's talk about it with fox news contributor bob beckel. he is a long time democrat. also with us, mark peason, former speech writer for former president bush. the first president bush, mark, appointed justice david souter, a guy that surprised him with some of the rulings he made, tended to be way more toward the liberal side. is it possible as president obama gets ready t