O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

[Pacridge]

O'connor to retire.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor_9

 

[shuamort]

But why? I'm still trying to figure that out!

 

[Schweddy]

Awesome!

This just made my day. :clap:

 

[Pacridge]

But why? I'm still trying to figure that out!

Tired of the whole mess?

 

[galenrox]

yeah, and Gonzales might get the spot, but he's really not that bad, looking at his record at the Texas supreme court.

 

[shuamort]

Tired of the whole mess?

Could've been she was just waiting to give a really bad decision (emminent domain)? She's still there til October '06 if I read correctly. Get ready for the rumble next year (a la Nuclear Option).

 

[ShamMol]

Oh no, she was the tie breaker whenever it came to abortion rights cases...this is going to cause a war in the Senate because I hope the Democrats realize this.

 

[shuamort]

Let’s go through a couple of the replacements that have been bandied about:

Michael Luttig: A bit of Scalia (Mini-me). Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well.

John Roberts: Denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC. She was handcuffed and arrested for violating the law. Argued that high school graduations can have religious ceremonies. Helped argue that doctors and clinic on the federal dole may not talk to patients about abortion.

Emilio Garza: Has concern about the death penalty. Agreed to strike down Louisiana law as unconstitutional because it criminalized abortion except for rape, incest et al.

Michael McConnell: Argued for school segregation saying that it was right under the 14th amendment.

Alberto Gonzalez: Looks like a liberal in comparison to all of these freaks. Has supported things that borderline torture for the g-bay prisoners.

Edith Clement: Seems to be for tort reform as she’s drastically lowered damage awards.

Samuel Alito: Was for allowing a manger scene on public property and in a case that was thrown out, he wanted it to go forward. This man is a judicial activist for the Christians.

AND MY CHOICE:
JH Wilkinson III: Was against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the basis it violated the equal protection clause. (Yeah for him!) Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well (with Luttig)

 

[ShamMol]

Michael Luttig: A bit of Scalia (Mini-me). Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well.

He also loves to quote the founders intent if I am not mistaken.

John Roberts: Denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC. She was handcuffed and arrested for violating the law. Argued that high school graduations can have religious ceremonies. Helped argue that doctors and clinic on the federal dole may not talk to patients about abortion.

Yeah, so another anti-abortion person who likes to attack civil liberties...I think we will se a trend here.

Emilio Garza: Has concern about the death penalty. Agreed to strike down Louisiana law as unconstitutional because it criminalized abortion except for rape, incest et al.

Hey, hates abortion but realizes the legal ramifications...well, that is a start.

Michael McConnell: Argued for school segregation saying that it was right under the 14th amendment.

Wow, alright then. Who here thinks that we should still have that....that is what I thought. So anti-civil liberties.

Alberto Gonzalez: Looks like a liberal in comparison to all of these freaks. Has supported things that borderline torture for the g-bay prisoners.

Anti-civil liberties, anti-abortion, anti-a whole list of things. But dammit, he is qualified like hell.

Edith Clement: Seems to be for tort reform as she’s drastically lowered damage awards.

That is unfortunately the trend of this Congress as well, so I don't know...she could go through. I wanna know what she thinks about abortion though...

Samuel Alito: Was for allowing a manger scene on public property and in a case that was thrown out, he wanted it to go forward. This man is a judicial activist for the Christians.

So are a lot of members of that court already. Anti-choice.

JH Wilkinson III: Was against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the basis it violated the equal protection clause. (Yeah for him!) Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well (with Luttig)

Great choice of the ones that are avaliable. I actually knew that he had done this and I was kinda happy when I heard his name being floated around.

 

[Pacridge]

It's going to be interesting. Bush's approval numbers are slipping, tanking even, this could go in several directions. Maybe even all at the same time.

 

[Squawker]

It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.

 

[shuamort]

It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.

Well, the reigning theory going is that the republicans will put up someone that has no chance of making it, the democrats will whine about that candidate while the real candidate walks in through the proverbial back door.

 

[ShamMol]

It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.

You know what Squawker, stop with it. We all know that you hate partisan politics, but wait, are one of the biggest perps in the us vs. them mentality.

You think that conservativs should get anything they want without a fight. Well, let me tell you that is not the way politics work.

 

[Schweddy]

Well, the reigning theory going is that the republicans will put up someone that has no chance of making it, the democrats will whine about that candidate while the real candidate walks in through the proverbial back door.

I would not doubt that one bit. It's a good plan actually. Considering the blocking and filibustering the dems have done thus far it is probably the only successful plan of action.

 

[ShamMol]

I would not doubt that one bit. It's a good plan actually. Considering the blocking and filibustering the dems have done thus far it is probably the only successful plan of action.

Completely agree. The Democractic leadership at this point realizes that they can't block every person they don't agree with. But they may realize this and try other methods.

 

[Squawker]

You know what Squawker, stop with it. We all know that you hate partisan politics, but wait, are one of the biggest perps in the us vs. them mentality.

You think that conservativs should get anything they want without a fight. Well, let me tell you that is not the way politics work.

Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that. There is no big surprise here ShamMol.

 

[ShamMol]

Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that. There is no big surprise here ShamMol.

No, we want someone who is highly respected within the court. We want someone with high qualifications. We want someone that is not blinded by ideaology. We want someone who will not use their personal opinion when deciding cases. As Justice Kennedy once said (not exactly, but the idea), Don't put your personal opinion on others.

I will not demonize someone I think is qualified. Some of Bush's appointees this year to the district courts have been great. He even had two good appellate ones. I don't demonize them just because they come from the right, because they are conservative. Jeez, why don't you get that Squawker.

 

[Alex]

She said she is retiring because she is getting older and wants to spend time with her family.

As far as a filibuster, didn't the Democrats agree to not use this for Supreme Court nominees in order to keep the filibuster option? Of course, that was an unwritten agreement and the Democrats could still use it, but that would damage their credibility.

Bush has said he will find a replacement before the next session. O'Conner will probably not be making any more court decisions.

I believe it does not matter who the Bush Administration appoints to the Supreme Count. Conservative presidents have appointed seven out of the nine justices there now. Considering this the court has, for the most part, remained liberal. The votes do tend to be very close, but still mostly in favor of civil rights. Something seems to happen to justices when they sit on that bench. Their ideologies can change. Perhaps they realize the enormous responsibility and impact they have. O'Conner herself was appointed by Reagan and yet she voted in favor of abortion, gay rights, and many times, for the separation of church and state.

It will be very interesting to see what does happen.

 

[Hoot]

I knew O'Connor would retire during the Bush administration. It's no surprise at all to me.

During the election of 2000, when CBS called Florida for Al Gore, O'Connor proclaimed "This is terrible!" ( She was at an election night party in D.C. when the first of the returns came in) Newsweek Dec 25, 2000

Her husband was left to explain that Sandra wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant she would have to stay on the bench at least another 4 years.

I'm frankly astonished she didn't retire during Bush's first term? She took a big chance since it's obvious she wanted to retire with a Republican in the White House.

At least O'Connor followed the law, except for the Bush v Gore 2000 case, but most of the time she didn't allow party preference to form her opinions. In that respect, she'll be missed.

As far as I'm concerned, Sandra can take Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and Kennedy with her...all traitors to our constitution....but that's another story.

 

[GPS_Flex]

What’s really sad here is the way some of you seek to politicize the only branch of government that shouldn’t be political.

Some of you are looking for judges to overrule congress and the people and want to give the judges unchecked power.

Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not rewrite it for the sake of fairness, evil vs. good or to stop terrible flaws in the laws we have on the books. That’s the job of Congress.

O’Connor was wrong on Roe. She should have told you pro-choice people to go amend the Constitution. Instead, she and other liberal judges legislated from the bench.

The US Constitution and the laws aren’t that difficult to understand. I’m not sure why any of you want judges who won’t rule solely based upon the law unless you are expecting judges to fix all the things that are unfair and wrong with said laws.

Is that what you want?

 

[26 X World Champs]

It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.

More unsubstantiated and more importantly prejudicial attacks against Democrats, how rare.

Well, let's just consider the source?

 

[ShamMol]

Wow, you were venting, and I understand that. Please keep in mind, you just did what you said you said we shouldn't by politicizing the court.

What’s really sad here is the way some of you seek to politicize the only branch of government that shouldn’t be political.

Yet you seem to do so quite quickly in this thread. No, I agree, a free and independent of ideaology judicial system is what we need.

Some of you are looking for judges to overrule congress and the people and want to give the judges unchecked power.

I am looking for them to interpret the consitution without political influence and to do what is right.

Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not rewrite it for the sake of fairness, evil vs. good or to stop terrible flaws in the laws we have on the books. That’s the job of Congress.

If the law is unconstitution, and thus bad, then it is gone, no questions asked.

O’Connor was wrong on Roe. She should have told you pro-choice people to go amend the Constitution. Instead, she and other liberal judges legislated from the bench.

You just politicized it. Congrats. she isn't liberal by any fricking means. She voted what was legally right. Under the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amms. a person has the right to be secure in their own body.

The US Constitution and the laws aren’t that difficult to understand. I’m not sure why any of you want judges who won’t rule solely based upon the law unless you are expecting judges to fix all the things that are unfair and wrong with said laws.

Is that what you want?

The constitution is a living document that must always be changing to fit the new needs of society and usually the Supreme Court has seen fit to do this. I don't give a frick about what is fair and unfair, I care about what is legally right and what is needed.

This woman was not a liberal. She was moderately conservative. There is no question of that, unless you listen to Squawker and a few others. She voted that way and only when she found it legally wrong to do so did she not. She was one of the hardest working and respected members of the legal community for her fairness and legal prowess. When a liberal can say that, it is something about the judge.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that.

How can anyone take someone seriously when in the same paragraph they bitch about how hating partisan politics and in the very next sentence this guy practices partisan politics?

Thank God most Americans aren't as closed minded or we'd have a civil war. Thank God most Americans are smarter than those who will bash their opponents at every opportunity as a first strike, not as a response to something objectionable.

I love that someone who has time and time again posted stuff like "any time you can **** off a Lib it's a good day" would then write "I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality."

Nuff said? :doh

 

[teacher]

What’s really sad here is the way some of you seek to politicize the only branch of government that shouldn’t be political.

If I said I seek Judges whose main issue is strict interpretation of constitutional law only need apply, would that work? The Supreme Court is no place for activists of either side. In other words. What were the founding fathers thinking? Simple. Worked so far.

 

[ShamMol]

If I said I seek Judges whose main issue is strict interpretation of constitutional law only need apply, would that work? The Supreme Court is no place for activists of either side. In other words. What were the founding fathers thinking? Simple. Worked so far.

You know, in all fairness, it wasn't the founding farthers who said the court was to interpret law...that was the Marbury court....though some people in the judicial system think they did enough to be considered founding fathers.