so what right-wing asshole is going to take her place?


O'Connor, First Woman on High Court, Resigns After 24 Years

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and DAVID STOUT
Published: July 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 1 -Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, announced today that she was resigning, setting off what is expected to be a tumultuous fight over confirming her successor.


Sandra Day O'Connor is widely viewed as the critical swing vote on abortion, affirmative action and other hot-button issues that have divided the Supreme Court.



President Bush says he hopes to name a replacement for Justice O'Connor "in a timely manner" so the vacancy can be filled before the start of the Supreme Court's next term in October.
Justice O'Connor, 75, is widely viewed as the critical swing vote on abortion, affirmative action and other hot-button issues that have divided the court, and her departure is sure to ignite a passionate ideological battle throughout the summer over a successor.

Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice. The retirement of Justice O'Connor creates the first vacancy on the court in 11 years, ending the longest period without a change in the lineup of justices in almost two centuries.

It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush still another seat to fill - and raising the prospect of a rightward turn in the court's orientation for many years to come.

Chief Justice Rehnquist has been the subject of months of speculation, while talk of Justice O'Connor's possible departure had been much quieter. But it was clear that her announcement was not a total shock: the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, read a tribute to her on the Senate floor minutes after the announcement, and it was clear that his statement had been prepared.

In a letter sent this morning to the White House, Justice O'Connor said she would step down as soon as the president named a successor.

"It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," she said in the three-sentence letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

President Bush said he would select a nominee "in a timely manner" so that a new justice could be on the bench when the court reconvenes in October. "I will be deliberate and thorough in this process," Mr. Bush said in a brief appearance at the White House.

The president said he hoped for a "dignified" confirmation process, and that he would consult with members of the Senate on his pick. But Mr. Bush also said he wanted his choice to have "fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote." Those words seemed to allude to parliamentary tactics that Democrats have employed to block or delay confirmation votes on several of his nominees for federal appellate courts. The president's comments also signaled that he planned to name a conservative to fill Justice O'Connor's seat, and thus tilt the court further to the right.

Several names have been circulated in recent months as a possible Bush nominee for any slot that opened on the court. They ******* Judge John G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Judges J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, both of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond; Judge Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, and Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans.

Another name mentioned as a possibility is that of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic nominee for the high court. Nor would it be surprising if the president encounters pressure to replace Justice O'Connor with a woman. (There is one other woman on the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is widely considered part of the court's liberal wing.)

Justice O'Connor's decision took some allies of the White House by surprise.

"An O'Connor resignation was not one we took seriously," said C. Boyden Gray, a former White House counsel, who founded the Committee for Justice, one of the advocacy groups set to back whoever the president nominates.

Mr. Gray received a text message during an interview with The New York Times at his Georgetown home shortly after 9:30 this morning informing him of Justice O'Connor's resignation.

"It makes me nervous," he said. "I'm not sure we are as prepared for an O'Connor vacancy."

O'Connor, First Woman on High Court, Resigns After 24 Years

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
Published: July 1, 2005
(Page 2 of 2)



One of the liberal groups expected to be active in the looming confirmation battle, People for the American Way, said the choice of Justice O'Connor's successor would represent a critical moment. "Justice O'Connor has been the most important figure on the court in recent years," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the group. "Her replacement will have a monumental impact on the lives and freedoms of Americans for decades to come.

Mr. Neas urged the president to engage in bipartisan consultations with the Senate before settling on a nominee and to reject pressure from conservatives for an ideological nominee. Conservatives have never gotten over the Senate's rejection of Robert H. Bork in 1987.

Mr. Bork, a former solicitor general of the United States and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when he was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, was unapologetic in expressing his conservative views during confirmation hearings. Conservatives have long complained that Mr. Bork was highly qualified to sit on the high court, and was turned back only because his views were unpalatable to some liberal lawmakers.

Justice O'Connor's announcement brought bipartisan praise for her tenure.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called her "an historic figure on the Supreme Court in many ways," while Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the minority leader, referred to her as "an inspirational figure to all Americans."

Justice O'Connor survived breast cancer in the late 1980's, and her husband, John, has been ill. President Bush said all Americans should be proud of her service, "and I'm proud to know her."

Senator Specter said at a Capitol news briefing that his committee "is prepared to proceed at any time" on confirmation hearings. Asked whether he thought it would be prudent for the president to replace Justice O'Connor with another centrist, Mr. Specter said: "That's the president's prerogative. I'm going to leave it to him."

Senator Reid made it clear that he and his Democratic colleagues were prepared for a bruising confirmation battle. "Working with the Senate, the president should identify a highly qualified candidate whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream and who will make all Americans proud," he said. "With this nomination, the president should choose to unite the country, not divide it. I look forward to working with the president and my colleagues in the Senate to fill this critical vacancy."

Justice O'Connor was born in El Paso and grew up in Arizona. She served in the Arizona State Senate in the early 1970's and is the only current member of the Supreme Court to have held elective office. In one of her last public appearances, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer at a panel discussion in April, she was asked for her reaction to criticism from some conservative Republican congressmen about "activist judges."

"This isn't new," she replied matter-of-factly, noting that there had been many episodes of lawmakers (or presidents) berating one court or another in moments of political passion.

O'Connor wasn't exactly a liberal - she was nominated by Reagan - but more of a moderate. Her views often coincided with Scalia's, neither of whom had a problem with breaking blocks of votes. Replacing her with a right-leaning candidate may not shake up the court much.

Alberto Gonzalez may get the nom. It wouldn't shock me at least.

I expect a woman though - the democrats would be less likely to demonize a woman in Congress, I think.

Bush will probably get 2 nominations, this one and Rehnquist (jeez, that guy really needs to step down). O'Connor may have chosen now rather than wait for a new president who may be a lot more liberal.

One thing I will miss about O'Connor is that she always used the traditional interpretation of the Constitution (original intent).

Oh man, that fat drunken idiot Ted Kennedy is already on the war path :rolleyes:
"If the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee and we intend to do so."

id be afraid who anyone would pick. this is such an important nomination....i jsut hope we can get someone really good in there. im not confident in bush's nomination base don his past nominations. i hope im wrong though and he will pick someone really moderate.

i'll let andrew sullivan speak for me:

"This is a critical moment for the president, a moment when he can reach back to a political center he has recently eschewed during a war in which a bitter and divisive internal fight should be avoided, if at all possible. I'm hoping for a reasonable and not overly ideological choice. What I'm expecting is another matter."

I just don't want to see another justice shot down for the sole reason of ideology (Bork).

This is bigger than if Rehnquist had resigned. O'Connor was the key swing vote on very many "left" decisions by the court. Replacing her with a hard right conservative will change the court immeasurably.


In 5-4 cases, Justice O'Connor often served as the voice of moderation, upholding common-sense values and principles. Below is a list of 5-4 decisions where O'Connor sided with the majority:

O'Connor Preserved Representation For All In Congressional Districting

In 2001, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Hunt v. Cromartie (later renamed Easley v. Cromartie,) to allow the use of race as a factor in drawing congressional districts, so long as it is not the "dominant and controlling" factor. [New York Times, 4/19/01]

O'Connor Preserved Diversity On College Campuses

In June, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. Writing for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

O'Connor Preserved A Woman's Right to Choose

Declaring that a state may "not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion," Justice Breyer expressed the 5-4 majority decision, with O'Connor joining, to strike down a Nebraska law that banned late-term abortion procedures. The case was Stenberg vs. Carhart.

In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a 5-4 majority upheld a woman's right to chose, but allowed states to place restrictions on that right so long as they do not "place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion." [Los Angeles Times, 6/30/92]

O'Connor Fought To Uphold Civil Liberties In Time of War

In Rasul v. Bush, which involved foreigners held at Guantanamo, O'Connor joined Stevens majority opinion asserting that United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

O'Connor Upheld Campaign Finance Regulations

O'Connor wrote the opinion in McConnell v. FEC upholding Congress's efforts to plug the soft-money loophole and regulate electioneering communications.

O'Connor Preserved Due Process In Detention Cases

O'Connor joined Breyer's majority 5-4 opinion in Zadvydas v. Davis concluding that detention of an illegal immigrant is limited to an amount "reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States" and "does not permit indefinite detention."

O'Connor Protects The Rights Of The Disabled

In 2004, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Tennessee v. Lane to uphold Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act which "prohibits government entities from denying public `services, programs and activities' to individuals on the basis of their disability. It also provides that persons who have been harmed by discrimination can seek damages, including from the states." O'Conner joined the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens.

-dailykos

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I just don't want to see another justice shot down for the sole reason of ideology (Bork).

:rolleyes:

As if bork the only supreme court nominee in history to be rejected just based on idealogy.

Are you still sore from George Washington's supreme court nominee's rejection, too?

Republicans argued that Bork had been treated unfairly in the confirmation hearings, and decried his opponents for voting against Bork's very conservative ideology. These arguments ignore the history of Supreme Court appointments, however. During the Washington Administration, for example, the Senate blocked President Washington's nomination of Justice John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the United States. Although Justice Rutledge was a distinguished jurist--"well qualifed" by the standards of his time--the Senate objected to his opposition to the Jay Treaty, and voted not to confirm him.

Unlike President Reagan, President Washington took Rutledge's denial in stride. "Just as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons," said Washington, "so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs."-wiki

Recent Senate confirmation votes:

Nominees by Republican Presidents:
John Ashcroft: 53-47 (all 47 D)
Clarence Thomas 52-48 (all 48 D)
David Souter: 90-9

nominees by Democrat Presidents:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96-3
Madeline Albright: 99-0
Janet Reno: 99-0
Stephen Breyer: 87-9

Given the recent fillibustering by the Dems, and the obvious trend in the numbers above to block any republican nomiees, I wouldn't be surprised to see the nuclear option returned to the table.

Originally posted by Debaser
This is bigger than if Rehnquist had resigned. O'Connor was the key swing vote on very many "left" decisions by the court. Replacing her with a hard right conservative will change the court immeasurably.

The court changed during Clinton's term as well, unless you think of Ginsburg as a moderate

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The court changed during Clinton's term as well, unless you think of Ginsburg as a moderate

Clinton's nominees slid thru because he consulted with Republican leaders first for their pre-approval before he made his nominees. You think Bush will extend the same courtesy? hah.

Originally posted by Debaser


Clinton's nominees slid thru because he consulted with Republican leaders first for their pre-approval before he made his nominees. You think Bush will extend the same courtesy? hah.
Do you think the Democrats would accept someone who leans as far right as Ginsburg does left just because Bush asks them for approval? Not bloody likely. Its not like the Democrats have extended much courtesy to Bush even on moderate nominations he's made.

Personally, I hope the President sticks to his promise to nominate someone in the Scalia/Thomas vein. (No Souters or Kennedys please...) If the Dems won't play ball, let them fight it out at their own political peril. I think the idea pushed by Democrats of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter on any issue of controversy ("the word of God" according to Nancy Pelosi:erm) might end up hurting them in the long run if they play politics with the Court too aggressively.

Originally posted by Debaser


Clinton's nominees slid thru because he consulted with Republican leaders first for their pre-approval before he made his nominees. You think Bush will extend the same courtesy? hah. The Bush White House has held secret meetings on possible replacements and senior officials have interviewed some candidates.

The president said he would also work with the Senate on filling the vacancy. The Senate Judiciary Committee votes on the potential nominee.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/resignation.supreme/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/possible.nominees/frameset.exclude.html

possible nominees

Originally posted by Corganist

Its not like the Democrats have extended much courtesy to Bush even on moderate nominations he's made.




OMG, THOSE POOR, SUFFERING REPUBLICANS! THOSE LEFTIES ARE SOOOOO, LIKE, TOTALLY RUDE AND STUFF!

Originally posted by DeadSwan

OMG, THOSE POOR, SUFFERING REPUBLICANS! THOSE LEFTIES ARE SOOOOO, LIKE, TOTALLY RUDE AND STUFF!
Think what you want to, but the majority of the goodwill that got Ginsburg and Breyer through so easily was on the Republicans' side of the aisle.

Originally posted by Corganist

Think what you want to, but the majority of the goodwill that got Ginsburg and Breyer through so easily was on the Republicans' side of the aisle. This is true.

Originally posted by Corganist

Think what you want to, but the majority of the goodwill that got Ginsburg and Breyer through so easily was on the Republicans' side of the aisle.

so what are you trying to say? that b/c the republicans were "played nice" at some point, that the democrats should automatically return the favor, regardless of the situation?

Originally posted by DeadSwan

so what are you trying to say? that b/c the republicans were "played nice" at some point, that the democrats should automatically return the favor, regardless of the situation?
Not really. I was just pointing out that Clinton was not the driving force in getting Ginsburg and Breyer through, just like Bush won't be the driving force in getting his nominees through. It took a lot more courtesy from the Republicans to confirm Ginsburg (who had a long history of very liberal activism and refused to answer the Senate's questions about a variety of cases and legal issues) than it did for Clinton to merely consult with the Republicans before nominating her.

Basically, Bush can play ball and consult with the Democrats on his nominees all he wants, but in the end its gonna come down to whether or not the Democrats want to play nice or not as far determining as whether this stuff gets ugly. They don't have to do anything, but it does seem to be a bit petty if they don't at least take the Republicans' past actions into account.

Originally posted by Corganist

They don't have to do anything, but it does seem to be a bit petty if they don't at least take the Republicans' past actions into account.



the republicans' last actions...hmmm....let's see...what have they been up to lately?

yes, i know! let's be nice to them!

Originally posted by DeadSwan




the republicans' last actions...hmmm....let's see...what have they been up to lately?

yes, i know! let's be nice to them! Up until the 90's, nominees were usually approved out of respect for the Presidential office and his right to appoint his own people.

Originally posted by DeadSwan

the republicans' last actions...hmmm....let's see...what have they been up to lately?

yes, i know! let's be nice to them!
I knew I should have added "as far as nominees are concerned" to the end of that sentence to avoid this sort of repsonse.

Originally posted by Corganist

I knew I should have added "as far as nominees are concerned" to the end of that sentence to avoid this sort of repsonse.




yeah, it was a little too easy. sorry about that.

as an aside, i'd like to say that i'm glad that the democrats are at least attempting to define some sort of position, and are putting up a fight. whether i agree with every fight is a different question, but at least it's cohesion! that party has a long way to go, but while it struggles to redefine itself to the american public, it at least shouldn't come across as wishy-washy.

Originally posted by DeadSwan
as an aside, i'd like to say that i'm glad that the democrats are at least attempting to define some sort of position, and are putting up a fight. whether i agree with every fight is a different question, but at least it's cohesion! that party has a long way to go, but while it struggles to redefine itself to the american public, it at least shouldn't come across as wishy-washy. I hope the Democratic Party implodes and takes the Repulicans with them

For the record it is my belief that after perceived "wish-washy" candidates like Kerry running as the face of the Democratic Party, the choice of Howard Dean as DNC Chair was to counteract the "wishy-washy" perception

Still a bad move, IMO.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

For the record it is my belief that after perceived "wish-washy" candidates like Kerry running as the face of the Democratic Party, the choice of Howard Dean as DNC Chair was to counteract the "wishy-washy" perception


and you would be right



also, i don't really know your politics, aside from the few things i've read on here, so excuse me for asking--what do you suggest in place of the current 2-party system? in all seriousness?

Originally posted by DeadSwan


yeah, it was a little too easy. sorry about that.
No worries. I was just lamenting the fact I left myself so open. :)

Originally posted by DeadSwan


and you would be right



also, i don't really know your politics, aside from the few things i've read on here, so excuse me for asking--what do you suggest in place of the current 2-party system? in all seriousness? A 5 party system would be a good start. Or at least 3. Anything odd so they don't just have GOP and DNC lite parties.

My problem with the 2 party system is that in order for it to succeed, the parties need each other more than they would ever admit.

A D would rather lose to an R than a Green, even though the Greens are closer in politics, because it maintains the 50/50 status quo of power, and thus gives us no real choice in elections.

Candidates try more now not to lose than to win, and to run down the opposition than to show who they are. If we had a real choice, candidates would more accurately have to define themselves and couldn't just attack - there's too much opposition.

The main difference between the Dems and the Repubs today is simply which special interest groups they are looking out for. Needless to say, it's not you or I.

The two party system is a failed system that is being kept alive by special interests and the media. The media is a willing participant in marginalizing all third party ideas and candidates.
This is also not to mention Congress - who simply vote along party lines most of the time. You get a bunch of parties, some independents in there and you will see real government in action as opposed to the backscratching jerk-off fests we have now

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
A 5 party system would be a good start. Or at least 3. Anything odd so they don't just have GOP and DNC lite parties.

My problem with the 2 party system is that in order for it to succeed, the parties need each other more than they would ever admit.

A D would rather lose to an R than a Green, even though the Greens are closer in politics, because it maintains the 50/50 status quo of power, and thus gives us no real choice in elections.

Candidates try more now not to lose than to win, and to run down the opposition than to show who they are. If we had a real choice, candidates would more accurately have to define themselves and couldn't just attack - there's too much opposition.

The main difference between the Dems and the Repubs today is simply which special interest groups they are looking out for. Needless to say, it's not you or I.

The two party system is a failed system that is being kept alive by special interests and the media. The media is a willing participant in marginalizing all third party ideas and candidates.


ok, in theory, that makes sense...who doesn't want more choices, more honest self-representation? well, most people (in my opinion) don't LIKE to have too many options b/c it makes things confusing. it's just so much easier to polarize things. i mean, sure, people are all into "customization" and i-pod playlists and blogs, but after a while, all that individualism starts to look the same..(hell, everyone owns an i-pod, not a Rio or whatever other brands there are)

revolutions (of varying intensity)lead to well-oiled beaurocracies, which in turn produce revolutions which produce well-oiled beaurocracies, which produce...

Originally posted by DeadSwan



ok, in theory, that makes sense...who doesn't want more choices, more honest self-representation? well, most people (in my opinion) don't LIKE to have too many options b/c it makes things confusing. it's just so much easier to polarize things. i mean, sure, people are all into "customization" and i-pod playlists and blogs, but after a while, all that individualism starts to look the same..(hell, everyone owns an i-pod, not a Rio or whatever other brands there are) The "polarization" we see is the parties working together. If they have Rs hate Ds and Ds hate Rs, everyone forgets about Ls, Gs, and Reformers.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The "polarization" we see is the parties working together. If they have Rs hate Ds and Ds hate Rs, everyone forgets about Ls, Gs, and Reformers.

well of course..it's called dialectics

it's pretty much how all things are defined

Originally posted by DeadSwan


well of course..it's called dialectics

it's pretty much how all things are defined Dialectics is a debate to find a synthesis or middle ground

I see quite the opposite from them.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Dialectics is a debate to find a synthesis or middle ground

I see quite the opposite from them.



yeah, the "middle ground" is the muddying of issues and the emptiness of distinction, purpose and character.


in other words, politics as usual

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Alberto Gonzalez may get the nom. It wouldn't shock me at least.

I expect a woman though - the democrats would be less likely to demonize a woman in Congress, I think.


I actually doubt Gonzalez will get the nomination. He's too much of a moderate. I think Bush will go for someone more conservative. Of course, Bush could decide it is not worth the trouble (there are numerous campaigns already well under way with regards to Supreme Court nominations)...he will have a fight on his hands if he nominates someone too conservative.

I highly highly highly doubt a woman will be nominated, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Sam and Mike

I actually doubt Gonzalez will get the nomination. He's too much of a moderate. I think Bush will go for someone more conservative. Of course, Bush could decide it is not worth the trouble (there are numerous campaigns already well under way with regards to Supreme Court nominations)...he will have a fight on his hands if he nominates someone too conservative.
I agree that Gonzales probably won't get the nod. Rightly so, IMO. Aside from his being a moderate, there's also been a lot of talk about his role as a top advisor to the administration and how it might cause conflicts that would force him to recuse himself from some cases. If that were the case, then the nomination would be wasted. It'd be much better to fill the position with someone who'd actually be able to hear every important issue that comes up.

I highly highly highly doubt a woman will be nominated, unfortunately.
Given Bush's record, I don't see how its completely out of the question. In any case, I don't see how it'd be unfortunate if a woman didn't get nominated. I don't see how it'd be fortunate if one did. What would be unfortunate is if we end up with anything less than someone who, regardless of their gender, doesn't treat the Constitution like a Ouija board.

I'm going to have an abortion tomorrow while I still can.