Breaking News: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, first woman on U.S. Supreme Court, is retiring.

Damn, Dubya gets to make his first appointment now.

The destruction of The U.S. Supreme Court has begun. :mad: Maybe he will pick someone who will be a turncoat like Souter.

Good - now we have our Summer entertainment lined up! Frankly, I thought it'd be the CJ who'd leave, but SDO'C has hinted at retiring earlier. This will make for interesting news between now and "the first Monday in October." Will the CJ follow suit once her replacement is confirmed? And who, pray tell, will that be???

I don't share your petulant pessimism, Mr. Bobby, and I suspect most lawyers don't either, and we're the ones to know. Don't forget that the Senate has a large role to play in this process. As for Souter's coat, it was one of many colors from the get-go.

[ July 01, 2005, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Any bets on Alberto Gonzales the evildoer who established interrogation policy for the war?

Here is the story about the resignation...
CNN Story

Resigning with less than 80 words...
CNN Link

Please speak only for yourself. God knows it's hard enough to swallow your opinions when they only apply to you.

Sincerely,
A fellow lawyer who doesn't agree with you

I wonder if MIB is on the short list.
He being a federal judge and all.

"Most" =/= "All," barkeep; you'll always be exempt in my book. But talk to some of your former fellow counsellors and listen to what they have to say.

Judge Robert Bork, who didn't make it to the Supreme Court in 1987, is on CNN now criticizing Sandra Day O'Connor for having a lack of judicial philosophy. When he was countered with the opinion that maybe her philosophy was just more moderate than his, he replied that there is no such thing as a moderate philosophy. Its either in the constitution or its not and many of her opinions were outside of the constitution.
He made it quite clear that he didn't have a very high opinion of her as a Judge. Not a very gracious thing to do on the day she announces her retirement.

[ July 01, 2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]

Poor embittered Bork! A smart man, but he fails to recognize that his view of the Constitution, and its place in resolving judicial controversies, is only one of several legitimate opinions on how to be an effective jurist. Agreed, he's not showing much class by criticizing a fellow Republican, especially on her retirement day. Something about Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, as I recall ...

Amazingly enough, Alberto Gonzales isn't conservative enough for the base...he's squishy on abortion and affirmative action. It's probably going to be someone even worse.

That must be the reason you dont critize your fellow republicans Jerry Falwell, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorm and on and on

I thought W would nominate Gonzales because no matter what the Democrats think and despite his role in enabling torture, he would be sure to sail through the Senate as the first nominee and first Latino nominee for the high court, and Barack Obama and Ken Salazar have both shown that they are willing to vote for almost any non-white nominee W puts forward. W's other option for someone to sail through would be a Republican in the Senate from a state with a Republican governor, meaning that the Senate would probably overwhelmingly support the person AND his/her replacement would be a Republican. I just hope it's not the nutcase John Cornyn, who on the floor of the Senate justified violence against federal judges. That would be a slap in the face to jurists of whatever stripe.

Bork is a total wacko, and his nutty jabbering is just an attempt to smear and slam O'Connor on a newschannel viewed by more than the far right (Faux), in order to muddy the public discourse so that W can nominate a judicial activist of the Scalia-Thomas ilk. Just keep in mind, all you homosexuals, that it was two moderate conservatives--Kennedy and O'Connor, both lifelong Republicans and Roman Catholics--whose votes overturned the anti-sodomy laws. Right-wingers like Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia (in particular) were more than willing to support the criminalization of what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. Maybe you agree with pope Quex that you're "intrinsically disordered" and the only option is celibacy, but the vast majority of homosexuals in this country, like Kennedy and O'Connor, do not.

[ July 01, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Gmginsfo...tsk, tsk. Didn't they tell you that all South Florida lawyers practice their trade in bars?

Poor inaccurate - again! - Mr. Raze.* As others here have recognized, I regularly take these jokers "on and on" and will continue to do so - although I much more enjoying dealing with the (dis)likes of you.
_____
*I think you're ready for another basting.

FT, talk in this office is that Cornyn is not even on the screen, so we can forget him, which is a good thing. Gonzalez is a possibility and perhaps because of a CA bias, JRBrown is also being mentioned, even though she's not even left CA for DC yet. I think it'll be someone from either one of the 13 federal circuit courts* or from a state appellate court, and that nominating any member of either house of Congress just won't happen.
_____
*Edith Jones from the 5th Cir., for whom former LCR-TX President and current U of MN law school professor Dale Carpenter once clerked, is a real possibility, but no one from the Nutty Ninth stands a chance, which is also a good thing. I'd forget anyone from the 11th Cir. as well.

Poor Mr. 20%, all over the map, as usual.

"Something about Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, as I recall ..."

Reagan wrote the commandments? Wow, he was even older than we thought! wink

For some of us, he's ageless! :cool:

Actually Nancy wrote them, they were channeled to her from Moses (via her astroligist.)

Quick, Raze, Spellcheck time! Your medication is wearing off!

Politically speaking, this couldn't come at a much better time for the President: a distraction from Iraq; a chance to change the political leaning of the Supreme Court just when he needs to reassure his base; an event they have been planning for since his election, so it doesn't need a lot of new work; and perhaps best of all, a chance to leave a lasting legacy again without doing much work. This is a softball for a President who is sinking quickly in popularity. But he may find a way to scew it up.

Look for Republicans to point to the confirmations of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as models of the process that should be employed in the effort to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Both Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated and confirmed at a time (1993-1994) in which the president's party -- Democrats -- also controlled the Senate. And both were given relatively easy passage through the Senate because the minority party -- Republicans -- cooperated with Democrats to ensure a quick confirmation. Ginsburg was nominated on June 14, 1993 and confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1993. Breyer was nominated on May 13, 1994 and confirmed on July 29, 1994.

They moved with such speed because Republicans, in particular Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, declined to challenge their records. Ginsburg, in particular, received something of a bye from Republicans despite her former position as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union; had they chosen to, Republicans could have hung every extreme ACLU position around Ginsburg's neck. Instead, "Sen. Hatch put an orderly and fair process above scoring political points," says one high-ranking staffer involved at the time. "It ensured that the Senate's conduct of the hearings was constructive rather than divisive."

Republicans also chose not to oppose Ginsburg even though she refused to answer dozens of questions during her confirmation hearings. Among others, she declined to give her views on Roe v. Wade, on the Second Amendment, on the death penalty, on the Voting Rights Act, on race-based congressional redistricting, and on adoption rights for gay couples, among many other issues. At one point in her hearings, Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond told her, "In preparing these questions or any others I may propound during the hearings, if you feel they are inappropriate to answer, will you speak out and say so." On another occasion, Thurmond said, "I will not press you to answer any that you feel are inappropriate."

Not surprisingly, Democrats wholeheartedly agreed. Then-chairman Sen. Joseph Biden told Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."

Of course, Republicans today realize that Democrats, now the minority party, will never extend to a Bush nominee the sort of treatment the GOP gave Ginsburg in 1993. Nevertheless, they will tell the story over and over, in hopes that someone will listen.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Quick wager, $20, even odds -
Rehnquist croaks before a replacement is approved for OC. That old bird looks pretty awful at this point. Tick tock!

I almost swerved into the oncoming lane when I heard someone on NPR quoting some Bush lackey. Paraphrasing - "POTUS will look to a candidate in the mold of Scalia."

JESUS f**kIN CHRIST! We are beyond doomed; we are eternally f**ked.

Has anyone checked Cheney's duck hunting / fly fishing schedule? I'm sure our future nominee was out there recently.

It's not uncommon for Judges to answer questions regarding their stance on issues. But it doesn't take a genius to go back and look at their voting records and get a clue!

Obviously not a whole lot can be done until someone is put up for nomination. It's a good sign that Bush will be consulting with both parties.....if that's genuine or not, who knows.

It's not a secret at all that Scalia is Bush's 'ideal' type of judge, which IS a very scary thing. I think a very small percentage of Americans would consistently agree with his extreme views.

The Dems have shown some grit in their performance as the minority party. I think if Bush does nominate someone extreme, they need to have a viable candidate to suggest (there are a good number of O'Connor swing vote types that are quality candidates to choose from). They can't play the we don't want here, pick someone else cause Republicans will throw it right back at them like they've done.

If I was Harry Reid, I'd have a meeting with a Democratic leadership and come up with a few reasonable candidates that they can be unified on and then if one of those don't get nominated, Bush has their list of good, conservative, but not too conservative candidates that would equal the mind-set of many more Americans.

Reid has already suggested 4 names publicly, all members of the US Senate. I believe he said that Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, and 2 other Senators would be good. I'd go for Graham, who has emerged as one of the most thoughtful, reasonable and interesting conservatives in the entire Congress.

and for the rest of us, he's just dead.

I seriously doubt Bush is going to nominate a current Senator, even one in a red state with a Republican governor.

The gauntlet was tossed during the "nuclear option" debate, and though the Dems lost the battle with the "gang of 14 compromise", Repubs made sound as if they had been robbed. Still Bolton dangles waiting for a possible recess appointment that may set the atmosphere for the Supreme Court battle(s?) coming up. If GWB decides to treat this as a game where he loses face if he compromises, this could get nasty, not because the Dems can do anything to stop him, but because he no longer has public support.

One aspect of Sandra Day O'Connor retirement & the search for a new Supreme Court Justice I find fascinating is the move to the conservative move to the right during the years that O'Connor served. When she was nominated by Reagan, she was viewed as having true conservative roots but now, many in the conservative camp openly hope her successor isn't as "moderate" as O'Connor (that's the word they choose to describe her) but is, instead, true to their brand of conservatism. It's akin to those who label Jon McCain a moderate.

~Adam

I think that is now because being 'conservative' is all about social conservatism, whereas I believe O'Connor's conservatism was more fiscal/federalist.

So... will the process of replacing O'Connor be relatively civilized, or will we have another fight like the brawls over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork?

I'm thinking that this is going to be a long, drawn out ugly battle.

I foresee the B.S. of the nuclear option happening as well. Bush is a pushy bastard and wants who and what he wants on the SCOTUS

Actually, he wants Gonzales, from everything I've read, but probably WON'T push for him because his base would flip . . .

Actually, Gonzalez would be a good replacement for O'Connor. Both moderate Republicans and represent different sectors of under-represented areas of America.

I think Bush is going to get the chance to replace another Justice before he leaves... why not sweeten the Democratic pot by offering someone more moderate and going for broke later?

Or is the fact that the 2006 elections next year of concern with losing some seats that might make it harder to get a more Constructionist judge as he wishes?

Bork is back on CNN being interviewed now. 18 yrs since his failed nomination and his views haven't changed a bit. He still thinks that a Justice should only rule on what is written in the Constitution......guess he misses the good old days when women didn't have the vote and blacks were still on the plantation. He has said one should be against Roe VS Wade because there is nothing in the US Constitution about abortion. Nothing has evolved in his world since the 18th century.

There isn't! Not at all. Not one damn bit. As John Hart Ely (a pro-abortion individual, BTW) once said, "The worst decision ever by the U.S. Supreme Court, with no foundation whatsoever in constitutional law."

Whatever happened to the 9th and 10th Amendments? It's obvious you're one of those who believes they don't exist, especially if like in Roe the ends justify the means.

[ July 03, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

As a foreigner I won't get in a debate on what is or is not in the US Constitution. I will however voice my opinion that the world has changed a lot since that reverred document was written and that courts must adapt to changing times, including womens rights to control reproduction and gay and lesbian citizens to have full rights of citizenship. That doesn't seem like too radical or liberal an idea to me. But then I live in a country where liberal is not a bad word and where our courts have frequently had to lead our political leaders in keeping up with the times.
As for Judge Bork, I watched his Senate hearings and can't deny that I think things turned out as they should have. Hey, its a free country and we are all entitled to voice our opinions, or so I thought.

Shut up, or we'll invade you. You have oil, eh?

wink

[ July 03, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: AU Tiger in ATL ]

Oh jeez, I forgot we are your biggest supplier of oil, I'm sure thats puts us on somebodies list eek!

Ha, Ha, Ha - now it finally comes out...
Actually we have been secretly subverting your culture for years by making it ridiculous!

How else do you explain Poutine? Bonhomme Carnivale? or what is happening to Hockey? :mad:

Soon you will come to share 'Traditional American Values' wink

R

[ July 03, 2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

OMG, alien invasion, war of the worlds, please please please ...just keep Tom Cruise on your side of the border and you can have all the oil you want. And we will let you keep Celine Dion as well.

PS, no one can explain Poutine. Bonhomme Carnivale on the other hand is fun and as for hockey guess you'd have to question Bettman.

PPS, we have been subverting your culture for years, Mary Pickford was our first undercover agent in our plan to take over Hollywood and destroy traditional American values and Pamela Anderson is our weapon of mass destruction LOL

[ July 03, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]

Was watching World News Now this morning and they had a story on how Bush's far right supporters are pushing hard for an appointment to be made that supports their hard right line beliefs. They focused on a church in Texas where the Pastor was talking about how they feel Bush must appoint a Judge that follows their and the Presidents hard right views. Again, I had to ask, where is the separation of church and state in all this??? I am sorry but I firmly must take a stand against promoting politics in a church setting. And this would go for any church which espoused/promoted anything that had to do with any policies that was left of center as well.
I remember all the years when I was young, and was attending bible school and all, and back then, you would never think of anything like politics in the church arena. My how times have changed.

Separation of church and state applies to the state not the church. The whole doctorine is around the state not promoting or endorsing religion. To that end they can't promote a religion, but also they can not interfere with a church as to what it does.

Now a church that actively endorses a canidate in church can lose its non-profit status, but it is still a church. The general discussion of politics in church or the discussion of what the president should do, or what they country needs doesn't usally cause a loss in non-profit status.

I agree when I was growing up this overt type of discussion never occured. But there was a much more subtle statement of political beliefs. I think it is wrong for a church to get that involved. But I don't think it violates the seperation of church and state.

From:

The Holy War Begins
Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent. Inside his Supreme Machine.
By Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek

"So who will it be? Two weeks ago, as rumors began to spread that O'Connor might depart, Bush aides and allies stepped up inquiries about female candidates, in case he decided he needed to select a woman to replace a woman. The list now is said to include four female appellate-court judges. If Bush is looking for a Hispanic other than Gonzales, he could turn to Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit. If gender balance or ethnicity isn't a concern, there's a long list of "heavy" (or, as one Republican Senate staffer called them, "kick-ass") white male conservative judges.

To those on the religious right, anyone on the list would be preferable to Gonzales, whom they regard as a chilling reincarnation of David Souter, Bush One's moderate pick in 1990. Choosing the attorney general might well doom GOP Senate incumbents, they say, by infuriating the party's fervent, evangelical grass roots. "If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006," said Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of conservative groups called Third Branch Conference. A former legal counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Miranda went on to threaten retribution against First Brother, should he decide to run for president. "We're not Republican patsies," he said. "Jeb Bush can go sell insurance."

With friends like that, who needs...
wink

Gee - did somebody say the 'J' word???

Rob

[ July 05, 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

The problem for Bush is that choosing a moderate will disincline the religious right (I refuse to call them the Republican "base") from working for Republican candidates in the midterm elections and choosing a hardline conservative will incline the Democratic base to work against Republican candidates in the midterm elections. Bush has painted himself (with the help of an increasingly polarized electorate) into a corner, and I don't see a successful strategy for him here. I think his only real hope is to select a candidate that won't be a lightning rod in the Senate so the confirmation can be quick and relatively quite, thus giving neither side serious soundbites to use come election season next year.

Fred Thompson to "guide" Bush's supreme court pick...Ed Gillespie to "help".

Yep, there goes W, again, being a uniter, not a divider.
CNN Story

From one George to another: When they employ the nuclear option, they should keep in mind the spirit, as well as the literal, meaning of those words. Republicans may hold power, but the people should & will have the last word. A soft revolution is preferable to a very hard one.

Once again you rewrite history. Hatch RECOMMENDED both Ginsburg and Breyer to Clinton. Let me say this again--he RECOMMENDED both of them to Clinton.

But here's Media Matters to challenge more right-wing misstatements.

[ July 06, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]