Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns

We're in deep shit now! :boo:

JUSTICE O’CONNOR RESIGNS
WASHINGTON, DC -- Sandra Day O’Connor, whose likely retirement has been rumored for some time, has announced that she will leave the Supreme Court as soon as a successor is named. Although expected, her retirement is nonetheless momentous and more than a little frightening and depressing for civil libertarians, liberals and moderates, who now must face the likelihood of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
O’Connor often provided the swing vote on a highly ideological court, moderating the extremes in case after controversial case. For example, she helped modify the right to abortion but refused to overturn Roe v. Wade.
President Bush’s nomination of a replacement and the almost certain confirmation battle in the Senate will be high drama, with the future of a free Republic at stake -- or so it seems in the emotion of the moment.From a front page story in virtually every newspaper in America.

Bill

And there's talk that Alberto Gonzales will be the next nominee. It's time to get organized and politically active.

And the really bad thing is that it appears as if the Chief Justice will be resigning before the next term and then Dubya gets to try to appoint two justices.....let's hope their is strong fight to get him to at least appoint a moderate.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

let's hope their is strong fight to get him to at least appoint a moderate.......

---

I wouldn't count on that. We'll have to send each member of the Democratic Party a gift certificate from The Sports Authority so they can get some balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt D

I wouldn't count on that. We'll have to send each member of the Democratic Party a gift certificate from The Sports Authority so they can get some balls.

---

So true....I'm not evey sure that would work, lately they all seem to be a bunch of wimps. :egg:

Before everyone runs around screaming again, just remember that everything is a process. And in the United States it is even moreso. Any court appointee has to be approved by the Senate. And the United States Senate is unlike any other place in the world.

Unlike many other countries, like say Spain where the Senate can vote down a policy advocated by the President, and it still go into law - we have a system of checks and balances. Remember the Senate is the institution that kept any civil rights bill from passing for 82 years, and it's what kept the Marraige Amendment from going to the states last year.

And even after all that, you simply cannot handicap judicial nominees. I easily recall the People for the American Way ardantly opposing Reagan for wanting to stack the court with rightwing judges. Today we see those same folks wanting more then anything for Reagan nominees like O'Connor and Kennedy to stay there. And you see the so-called conservatives doing the opposite, essentially trashing their own judges.

This is excatly why we have lifetime appointments for federal judges.

Steve

Yeah, all of this is insane. O'Connor is suddenly a liberal hero now. But she's the Wicked Witch of the West on conservative talk radio.

And I've just learned Alberto Gonzales is reviled in conservative circles for his pro-choice stance, and because he might be in favor of affirmative action. Democrats seem to like him though.

People always try to fit a political lens onto the judicial branch.

Frankly whenever you do that, it is like putting the wrong contact lenses in your eyes. You won't see anything.

Steve

I dislike the idea of Gonzales being a supreme court justice for a couple of reasons, but mainly his experience.

He had absolutely no judicial experience until Bush appointed him to the Texas Supreme Court. And prior to that his career was marked by rapid upward acceleration directly as a product of his being GWB's buddy, rather than any demonstration of outstanding skill or ability or wisdom on his part.

A Supreme Court Justice whose only judicial experience comes from having previous been appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by the very same man who then appointed him to the US Supreme Court?

Sure, he worked for a prominent Texas law firm before becoming attached to George Bush at the hip and seemed to have made quite a name and built quite a reputation for himself in his part of Texas but the last 10 years of his career - the entire extent of his service in the public legal arena - has been the direct result of appointments to positions by Bush.

Would Bush, in nominating Gonzales, be nominating the best man for the job? Or even a good choice among a potential many? Or would he just be doing a favor for a friend? What is Gonzales record of service and accomplishment and counsel and decision-making outside of the context of his being GWB's buddy and GWB's apparent ideal lawyer?

Well here's an example out my hat o' history: FDR appointed William O Douglas to the Supreme Court. Douglas had no experience at all as a judge beforehand. FDR had first chosen Douglas to supervise the beginning years of the Secuirties & Exchanges Commission, making him a very reliable New Dealer, and a clear protege of the President's. Douglas went on to be the longest serving justice ever on the Supreme Court - retiring in 1975.

I just point that out to illustrate that historically judicial experience has never been a hard rule for judges - and I would suspect that a great many other notable justices enjoyed little prior experience on the bench.

I can tell you though from living here in Austin in the 1990s that Alberto Gonzales was anything but a right wing firebrand on the Texas Supreme Court. He was part of a majority (all Republican Bush appointees) who struck down a Texas parental consent law... which is the one item the social conservative groups apparently never will forget.

In his time on the bench here, he was pretty much a center-right judge who could be characterized a business friendly but willing to address state encroachment regarding civil rights issues. Of course, I am *not* predicting anything :P just reporting....

Although frankly I think it would be weird for Bush to appoint him right now since he only just got to the D.O.J. The best thing for Bush now would be for Rehnquist to retire very soon, and they all strike a deal with the dual appointments of a moderate woman and then a stronger conservative.

Steve

Just out of curiousity, isn't Gonzales the one who wrote that memo about what was torture and what wasn't for those being held as terrorists?

all seems greek to me, but good luck on hopefully getting someone decent on the bench... though with the republicans having 56 out of the 100 seats kind looks like it could be anyone GW wants... or is there a special number needed like to over ride a veto?

just curious
Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

Just out of curiousity, isn't Gonzales the one who wrote that memo about what was torture and what wasn't for those being held as terrorists?

---

Yep. That's the man.

Some curious comments from Gonzales during his confirmation hearing re: privacy rights, undue burden, abortion, and enforcing the law of the land:

Quote:

---

Sen. Durbin: The last question is a brief one, and it may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was asked about Roe versus Wade, which he disagreed with on a political basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words, "settled law," and Roe versus Wade was "settled law" in America. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement of Roe versus Wade or any other court decision that you personally or politically disagree with?

Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained.

My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

all seems greek to me, but good luck on hopefully getting someone decent on the bench... though with the republicans having 56 out of the 100 seats kind looks like it could be anyone GW wants... or is there a special number needed like to over ride a veto?

---

The way it works is the President appoints all federal judges and the nine judges to the US Supreme Court.... with the "advice and consent of the Senate"

There is not a veto situation in a nomination process.

The nomination will go to the Senate Judicary Committee, whose chair is pro-choice Republican Arlan Specter. I haven't seen anyone mention this, but the real man with all the cards here is Specter. Conservative groups have never forgotten or forgiven him for voting against nominee Robert Bork.

Now approving the nominee would take a simple vote of 50 senators. However, because every Senator has the right to speak forever on whatever they like, the Senate must first vote to stop talking in order to vote. This is called a cloture vote.. or "voting for cloture."

A cloture vote requires 60 votes. If Senators choose to debate something forever, that is called a fillibuster. Now Republicans have argued that the rules shoould only allow fillibustering of legislation, not nominees. That is completely wrong. In fact the Senate fillibustered a Lyndon Johnson nominee to be Chief Justice in 1969, Abe Fortas. The Southern Senate Democrats did not want a liberal as Chief Justice. It is not at all uncommon for the Senate to reject one or even two nominees before eventually settling on giving their consent.

Steve

here is an online petition regarding this situation.
http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourr...EnEoY9icdQ&t=3

i am personally doubtful that such a petition carries much weight, but i don't really know. maybe someone here does. it seems to me that personally contacting your senator does more. our senator's office tells me they put much more weight in actual hard letters than in emails, btw.