Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns

[BDBionic]

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?

[desslock]

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 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

[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?

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

[Matt D]

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.

[Matt D]

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

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.

[desslock]

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

[basschick]

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.

[gaybucks_chip]

BTW, apparently the powers-that-be have some formula that weights the value of a communication from a constituent. Perhaps to counteract the attempts by various groups to flood senators with emails/formletters/etc to improperly influence legislation.

Hand written letters count MUCH more than printed letters, which, in turn, count more than emails. So anyone sending correspondence should take a few minutes and send a handwritten letter.

[desslock]

And another way you California guys can get your representatives to listen to you more - if they all were not in gerrymandered safe districts which will keep them returning until senility. If and when you guys have that ballot initiative from your governor this upcoming November to get an unelected board to draw Congressional seats, please vote for it.

If their seats are competitive, they will read their mail a lot harder.

Texas will hopefully get that in two years.

Steve