Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

[acludem]

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

Did you catch the ridiculous Kennedy, Reid press conference. Or should I call it the do as we say or else conference....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Did you catch the ridiculous Kennedy, Reid press conference. Or should I call it the do as we say or else conference....

Bits and pieces. I've been flipping around a lot. I love watching libs go insane!

 

[acludem]

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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?

 

[acludem]

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

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.

 

[Annie]

Might be something to this:

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

Lots of links

July 01, 2005
The Garza Trip

(I could actually have picked all of the categories for this post, as the Supreme Court now encompasses the entirety of human endeavor.)

Over at Patterico's Pontifications, Patterico suggests, in an update to a guest post by Angry Clam that is both angry and potty-mouthed, that a good choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supremes would be Emilio Garza. I agree; but as always, I have my idiosyncratic reasons for doing so.

O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the Court. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but she turned out not to be reliable as a "strict constructionist." In fact, she issued many rulings that conservatives and libertarian-conservatives found very troubling, including support for a virtually unfettered "right" to abortion and recent rulings -- one in the majority, the other in the minority -- to bar the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.

If you believe in limiting the ability of unelected federal judges to decide the great issues of the day; if you prefer that such issues be decided by the people themselves, either directly through referenda or indirectly via the legislatures; or if you just want to see the ultraliberals in the Senate spasm like monkeys undergoing electroshock therapy, then you will want to see the president name a strict constructionist to replace her. (See the Wikipedia for a thumbnail discussion of what the heck that means.)

But if Bush were to replace O'Connor by some conservative male, a hue and a holler would erupt from the Democrats that the O'Connor seat is supposed to be a "female" seat. Bizarre as this sounds, it would give the Democrats a ready-made excuse to filibuster -- and it would give moderate-to-liberal Republicans (Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins) reason to vote against him.

But, while it's true that there are only two women on the Court, it's also true that there are exactly zero Hispanics. And as cynical as it may sound, the political damage of a "female" seat shifting to a "male" seat can be ameliorated by it also being a shift of a "white" seat to a "Hispanic" seat.

In other words, if Bush were to nominate a Hispanic, even a Hispanic male, to replace O'Connor, the opposition of feminists would be met by the support of Hispanics. Many otherwise reliably liberal Democratic senators from states with large Hispanic populations (Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer from California, Bill Nelson from Florida, Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, and Harry Reid from Nevada) -- and even a notoriously unreliable Republican, John McCain of Arizona -- would come under intense pressure from their constituents to support the appointment of the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. Even many liberal senators from states with no significant Hispanic population might conclude that it was more important to break that racial barrier than to keep a somewhat conservative XX seat from going reliably XY conservative.

But which Hispanic should Bush name? The three names that come bubbling up (probably because most people, including moi, don't know more than three Hispanics who have been talked about for Court material) are Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, and Emilio Garza.

The first two bring problems:

Estrada was originally nominated to the powerful D.C. Circus Court; but he was filibustered, and he eventually got fed up with the whole affair and withdrew his name. To the Democrats, renominating Estrada would be like giving them dessert after a wonderful entré: it was T-bone steak to drive him away the first time; and now that he has demonstrated spinelessness in the face of battle, it would be key lime pie to run him off a second time.

About Gonzales, there are two more substantial objections: first, he is far from being reliably strict-constructionist; in fact, many think he would be even worse than O'Connor. As some Republican senatorial staffer quipped, "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter," referring to Bush-41 appointee David Souter: thought to be conservative, Souter was nominated by GHWB to the Supreme Court after less than three months on the Circuit Court; he subsequently "grew in office" to become one of the most liberal justices in the joint.

But even worse than that, Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out in National Review Online that because Gonzales was White House Counsel for four years (arguing on behalf of President Bush) and is now Attorney General, he would have to recuse himself from half the cases that come before the Court... and especially from any case involving partial-birth aboriton, affirmative action, turning over classified documents to Congress or to news agencies, or any case involving the war on terrorism -- military tribunals, the treatment of detainees at Gitmo, the War Powers Act, and so forth, all cases where Gonzales himself argued on behalf of the Bush administration. That's pretty much every case of moment for the next several years!​

So that leaves Emilio Garza: a solid strict constructionist with fourteen years on the 5th Circuit (appellate) Court and well known to the Bush family, since it was Bush-41 who appointed him to the Circus Court in 1991.

So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it: Garza for the Supremes!

 

[dilloduck]

Nominating a SCJ because of race or gender is bizarre. Is there some affirmative action clause in the constitution that I'm unaware of?

 

[Annie]

I kinda like this:

http://gullyborg.typepad.com/weblog_archive/2005/07/replacing_sandr.html

Replacing Sandra Day O'Connor

Quick thought:

Bush should nominate Ann Coulter. She is constitutional scholar with a J.D. from a respectable law school. That's more than most of our Justices have had, historically.

I'm serious.

Either they confirm her, or they raise hell. Assuming they raise hell enough to block the nomination, anyone else Bush puts up as a replacement looks moderate by comparison. Then, he can name someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and the opposition will have to give in, since the replacement will be soooooo much better than Ann Coulter.

Heh.

 

[dilloduck]

Bush needs to pick someone and shove it down everyones' throats. Trying any appeasement is a waste of time and money. The legislature has a hell of a lot on thier plates. Let's just it over with.

 

[Annie]

I kinda like this:

http://gullyborg.typepad.com/weblog_archive/2005/07/replacing_sandr.html

From the same school, in the comments section:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005370.html

If I were the President and wanted to temper expectations I was nominating a strong or controversial conservative, I'd float the name of well-loved on the left John Ashcroft, let the news simmer in the press for a few days, then say such remors have no merit and nominate who I wanted.
Posted by: Scott on July 1, 2005 11:38 AM

 

[dilloduck]

From the same school, in the comments section:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005370.html

Wishful thinking----give the liberals a little credit to be able to see through this plan in a New York minute.

 

[acludem]

I actually think Alberto Gonzalez would have an easier time being confirmed than Garza because of three words: Roe versus Wade. Garza has publically stated his disagreement with this decision, Gonzalez has come down on the side of abortion rights in his time as a Texas judge.

As for Ann Coulter, I think not. My big name choice that would likely have no problem getting confirmed would be former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Simpson is a common sense conservative, he's well liked and respected by people in both parties, and would have an easy time getting confirmed.

acludem

 

[Annie]

I actually think Alberto Gonzalez would have an easier time being confirmed than Garza because of three words: Roe versus Wade. Garza has publically stated his disagreement with this decision, Gonzalez has come down on the side of abortion rights in his time as a Texas judge.

As for Ann Coulter, I think not. My big name choice that would likely have no problem getting confirmed would be former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Simpson is a common sense conservative, he's well liked and respected by people in both parties, and would have an easy time getting confirmed.

acludem

Yeah, but Simpson is too old.

 

[Nienna]

I thought this was kinda funny...

http://upordownvote.com/xp303htm/vid_ben_george_flash.htm

 

[Bonnie]

I actually think Alberto Gonzalez would have an easier time being confirmed than Garza because of three words: Roe versus Wade. Garza has publically stated his disagreement with this decision, Gonzalez has come down on the side of abortion rights in his time as a Texas judge.

As for Ann Coulter, I think not. My big name choice that would likely have no problem getting confirmed would be former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Simpson is a common sense conservative, he's well liked and respected by people in both parties, and would have an easy time getting confirmed.

acludem

Considering the fact that many of these justices believe the Constitution to be a" living breathing document" that is subject to international law on occasion, why not be open to someone who is Conservative and would overturn Roe V Wade because they beleive it's just bad law. Given the courts really bad decision regarding eminent domain why not pick a justice that would turn the tables?? You are under the illusion that no bad law has ever come from the Supreme Court that could or SHOULD be subject to change. Essentially what Liberals will say is only pick a nominee that will support Roe V Wade even if it's bad law so long as abortion remains legal.........That's quite a litmus test huh?

 

[acludem]

I honestly find it hard to believe that most "strict constructionists" have ever actually read the Constitution. Frankly, it is very vague in many areas. It was written that way for a reason. The reason quite simply is that the founders wanted a document that could adapt to changing times, and the fact that over 200 years later, there have been only twenty seven amendments to the document and most of those occured within the first 75 years of our government shows that they were extremely successful.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I honestly find it hard to believe that most "strict constructionists" have ever actually read the Constitution.

They're the only ones who do.

Frankly, it is very vague in many areas.

No. You can't read. It's very concise. It sets the basic structure of government and limits those powers. It expressly says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

It was written that way for a reason. The reason quite simply is that the founders wanted a document that could adapt to changing times, and the fact that over 200 years later, there have been only twenty seven amendments to the document and most of those occured within the first 75 years of our government shows that they were extremely successful.

acludem

Your brand of judicial activism has no precedent in founders intention or constitututional legitimacy. Your liberal, socialist, judicial, oligarchy has no clothes.