• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But why? I'm still trying to figure that out!
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Awesome!

This just made my day. :clap:
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
yeah, and Gonzales might get the spot, but he's really not that bad, looking at his record at the Texas supreme court.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pacridge said:
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
shuamort said:
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.
shuamort said:
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.
shuamort said:
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.
shuamort said:
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.
shuamort said:
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.
shuamort said:
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...
shuamort said:
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.

shuamort said:
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
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

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Squawker said:
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
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

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
shuamort said:
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
vauge said:
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

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
GPS_Flex said:
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.
 
Last edited:

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
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

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GPS_Flex said:
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
teacher said:
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.
 
Top Bottom