Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

Discussion in 'Politics' started by acludem, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    I'm surprised there hasn't been discussion of this yet:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161308,00.html

    I wish Justice O'Connor all the best. She has often been the voice of reason on a sharply divided court. Justice O'Connor was the first woman Justice and she will go down in history as one of the great associate justices of all time, not because of her gender but because of her intelligence, common sense and decency.

    Of course the political implications of this are huge. Who will Pres. Bush nominate to fill the vacancy? Will it be a very conservative nominee or someone more moderate? We shall soon see.

    Acludem
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    It's so funny. Listening to libs talk, a "concensus candidate" means "someone they like". You know what? Screw you, libs. You 've been losing elections for twenty years now. Bend over.
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Did you catch the ridiculous Kennedy, Reid press conference. Or should I call it the do as we say or else conference....
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Bits and pieces. I've been flipping around a lot. I love watching libs go insane!
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    He didn't say anything of the sort. He simply state his respect and admiration for Justice O'Connor and then appealed to President Bush to appoint a mainstream nominee who has not way out in right field, and asked that the Senate be consulted in the nominating process. Senate Republicans said many of the same things in their press conference.

    Also, just for a point of reference, of the current court, only TWO justices Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by a Democrat (Bill Clinton). Rehnquist was originally appointed by Richard Nixon and was elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan, Stevens was appointed by Gerald R. Ford, Kennedy, Scalia and O'Connor by Reagan, and Souter and Thomas by George Bush. So don't give me this crap about Democrats nominating all the justices. By the way, both of Clinton's choices had broad bipartisan support. So did Justice Souter. Of the last six members appointed, only Thomas has had difficulty. Robert Bork is the only nominee to be turned down, and that was because he was a right-wing ideologue. Reagan then appointed Justice Kennedy who was easily confirmed.

    acludem
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Right. A "mainstream candidate" means "someone libs approve of". And my point is "screw you, you're not in power, you guys are a bunch of losers". Clear enough?
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    A mainstream Supreme Court nominee, for me, would be someone with a record of respected judicial decisions, one who hasn't publically stated a specific, partisan political philosophy. A good nominee should have a record that shows a pattern of ruling based upon the rule of law rather than on a partisan ideology. Both Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg fit this mold. So did David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. That's why these nominees had nearly universal support. Clarence Thomas was on record with a very conservative ideology. There were also allegations of sexual harrassment. His opponents chose not to filibuster, though. Scalia also was easily confirmed, now he's become the most conservative justice on the court.

    acludem
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Rule of law? You lefties believe in judges doing whatever they feel regardless of if it's in the consitution or not. You hallucinate things into the constitution you WISH were there. SHow me the right to abortion in the constitution. You're a joke.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Might be something to this:

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004861.php

    Lots of links

     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Nominating a SCJ because of race or gender is bizarre. Is there some affirmative action clause in the constitution that I'm unaware of?
     

Share This Page