BREAKING--Supreme Court Justice retires

[RobertAnthony]

The battle for the bench is ready to heat up as according to Fox News' sources the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor is imminent. O'Connor was the first woman ever sent to the nation's highest court. She was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Fox News was first to report, now all the cable outlets are coming on as are the Big Three networks. It's official--Sandra Day O'Connor announces her retirement:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by RobertAnthony on 07/01/05 02:31 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[JerryStevens]

Wild-Ass Guess

Wild-ass guess: Sandra O'Connor has been tipped by Renquist that he will announce his retirement soon. O'Connor, believing Scalia will be named Chief Justice, would prefer to retire now. Waiting until Scalia's appointment is announced would make it appear (or reveal) that she is unwilling to serve on a court of which Scalia is Chief Justice. It has been opined by some reporters that O'Connor takes personally Scalia's indelicate criticisms of her written opinions embedded in his dissents.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[RockManAC]

> The battle for the bench is ready to heat up as according to
> Fox News' sources the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor is
> imminent. O'Connor was the first woman ever sent to the
> nation's highest court. She was nominated by President
> Ronald Reagan in 1981. Fox News was first to report, now
> all the cable outlets are coming on as are the Big Three
> networks. It's official--Sandra Day O'Connor announces her
> retirement:
>
http:/> /news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor
>

I woke up to a Brian Williams Special Report where the last hour of Today should have been.

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[bluescreen]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> Wild-ass guess: Sandra O'Connor has been tipped by Renquist
> that he will announce his retirement soon. O'Connor,
> believing Scalia will be named Chief Justice, would prefer
> to retire now. Waiting until Scalia's appointment is
> announced would make it appear (or reveal) that she is
> unwilling to serve on a court of which Scalia is Chief
> Justice. It has been opined by some reporters that O'Connor
> takes personally Scalia's indelicate criticisms of her
> written opinions embedded in his dissents.
>
I would guess her retirement has far less to do with Scalia and more to do with the fact that her husband has early-stage Alzheimer's. Can't blame her for wanting to spend as much time with him as possible before the disease takes him from her.

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> I would guess her retirement has far less to do with Scalia
> and more to do with the fact that her husband has
> early-stage Alzheimer's. Can't blame her for wanting to
> spend as much time with him as possible before the disease
> takes him from her.

One guess is as good as another. Her letter of resignation gave no reason at all. [Edit: Clarification, her announcement, which is separate from her letter, said it was to spend more time with her family. It might be the only reason but of course, that is the standard announced reason for anyone retiring]
<font face="arial">
"Dear President Bush:

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor.

"It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the Court for 24 terms.

"I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the Court and its role under our constitutional structure."



Sincerely,

Sandra Day O'Connor"
</font><P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Moynihan">late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</a></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Jerry Stevens on 07/01/05 05:34 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[2001]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> > I would guess her retirement has far less to do with
> Scalia
> > and more to do with the fact that her husband has
> > early-stage Alzheimer's. Can't blame her for wanting to
> > spend as much time with him as possible before the disease
>
> > takes him from her.
>
> One guess is as good as another. Her letter of resignation
> gave no reason at all. [Edit: Clarification, her
> announcement, which is separate from her letter, said it was
> to spend more time with her family. It might be the only
> reason but of course, that is the standard announced reason
> for anyone retiring]
>
> "Dear President Bush:
>
> "This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my
> position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
> United States, effective upon the nomination and
> confirmation of my successor.
>
> "It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a
> member of the Court for 24 terms.
>
> "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of
> the Court and its role under our constitutional structure."
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sandra Day O'Connor"
>


Given the fact that there is one soon-to-be-vacancy on the SC, and a few more to follow in the next year or two, is it any wonder why this past presidential election was soooo huge?! Kerry spent way too much time focusing on Iraq and "the whole world hating the US, blah! blah! blah!". He should have been hollering and screaming a whole lot more than he did about the SC vacancies that were sure to arise in the next president's term in office----and how crucial that sort of thing is (and will be for many, many years to come) to the American people!!

 

[PW]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> Given the fact that there is one soon-to-be-vacancy on the
> SC, and a few more to follow in the next year or two, is it
> any wonder why this past presidential election was soooo
> huge?! Kerry spent way too much time focusing on Iraq and
> "the whole world hating the US, blah! blah! blah!". He
> should have been hollering and screaming a whole lot more
> than he did about the SC vacancies that were sure to arise
> in the next president's term in office----and how crucial
> that sort of thing is (and would be) to the American
> people!!
>


Did you see the (recently released) grades he got at Yale - including a D in political science?

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd want to monkey with the constitution..but what about a 20-year term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions (sp?) deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[PW]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative
> activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd want
> to monkey with the constitution..but what about a 20-year
> term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions (sp?)
> deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.
>

Maybe every other year we have the Senate (or the House) rate them all and the lowest scoring justice goes home? I don't mind changing the constitution when it's done in the way the constitution provides for. When the Supremes change the constitution by discovering some previously undiscovered right or finding some right in foreign law, that's wrong.

 

[2001]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> > It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative
> > activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd want
>
> > to monkey with the constitution..but what about a 20-year
> > term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions (sp?)
> > deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.
> >
>
> Maybe every other year we have the Senate (or the House)
> rate them all and the lowest scoring justice goes home? I
> don't mind changing the constitution when it's done in the
> way the constitution provides for. When the Supremes change
> the constitution by discovering some previously undiscovered
> right or finding some right in foreign law, that's wrong.
>

Oh, I've always felt that the "on the bench for life" vis a vis the SC justices is wrong! Yes, its supporters will say that's so judges don't feel pressured to vote one way or the other so as to appease the voters/popular majority. Yeah, ok, fine, but what about term limits? There should be term limits for SC judges!--And reasonable length of time term limits, like 10 years or whatever. Maybe more, maybe less, but something like that.

 

[JSS]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> Wild-ass guess: Sandra O'Connor has been tipped by Renquist
> that he will announce his retirement soon. O'Connor,
> believing Scalia will be named Chief Justice, would prefer
> to retire now. Waiting until Scalia's appointment is
> announced would make it appear (or reveal) that she is
> unwilling to serve on a court of which Scalia is Chief
> Justice. It has been opined by some reporters that O'Connor
> takes personally Scalia's indelicate criticisms of her
> written opinions embedded in his dissents.
>

I doubt it. As another poster mentioned, her husband's health is starting to decline, and at age 75, she isn't so young herself. The current court has a reputation for being relatively tight-knit, despite their philosophical differences. While it's true that Scalia throws his writtem barbs (quite memorably, I must admit), it doesn't strike me as anything more than professional disagreement.

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on my part, but I don't see Scalia being named Chief Justice if Reinquist steps aside. Bush would have to spend a tremendous amount of political capital on that appointment at a time when his approval ratings are languishing. As much as it would disappoint his base, I think he'd be wiser sticking with a

 

[RobertAnthony]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> > > It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative
> > > activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd
> want
> >
> > > to monkey with the constitution..but what about a
> 20-year
> > > term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions
> (sp?)
> > > deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe every other year we have the Senate (or the House)
> > rate them all and the lowest scoring justice goes home? I
>
> > don't mind changing the constitution when it's done in the
>
> > way the constitution provides for. When the Supremes
> change
> > the constitution by discovering some previously
> undiscovered
> > right or finding some right in foreign law, that's wrong.
> >
>
> Oh, I've always felt that the "on the bench for life" vis a
> vis the SC justices is wrong! Yes, its supporters will say
> that's so judges don't feel pressured to vote one way or the
> other so as to appease the voters/popular majority. Yeah,
> ok, fine, but what about term limits? There should be term
> limits for SC judges!--And reasonable length of time term
> limits, like 10 years or whatever. Maybe more, maybe less,
> but something like that.
>
Have not given that some thought--but it takes time for lawyers and clients to gather research and evidence and then you have to wait to see if your case will even get to that level. But what scares me is that the liberals on the court make us want to be more like a World Court like the Hague--which is why a conservative MUST BE SELECTED--no middle ground and communist UN-lovers be damned!! And for those who are liberal who post here, some of your faves like MoveOn.org and People for The American Way are in battle mode just as Family Reseach Council, American Family Association et al are geared on the conservative side.

Both sides are ready to bring it!

 

[dhett]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative
> activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd want
> to monkey with the constitution..but what about a 20-year
> term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions (sp?)
> deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.
>

I think that Drudge is proceeding from a false assumption that these justices make such decisions without any outside input. I doubt that. I would imagine that they're briefed on the issues by staff that are much younger than themselves, and likely internet-savvy.

I guess we'll see if the Dems were telling the truth with their "no filibuster" pledge. More likely, they'll weasel out of it with the "this is an extreme case" excuse.

 

[RobertAnthony]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> > It's gonna be a wild ride, as liberal and conservative
> > activists battle it out on the airwaves. Not that I'd want
>
> > to monkey with the constitution..but what about a 20-year
> > term limit? As Drudge says, we've got octogenarions (sp?)
> > deciding internet issues which they're not familiar.
> >
>
> I think that Drudge is proceeding from a false assumption
> that these justices make such decisions without any outside
> input. I doubt that. I would imagine that they're briefed
> on the issues by staff that are much younger than
> themselves, and likely internet-savvy.
>
> I guess we'll see if the Dems were telling the truth with
> their "no filibuster" pledge. More likely, they'll weasel
> out of it with the "this is an extreme case" excuse.
>
Dems--Telling the truth? There's a stretch! But your post is interesting.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

Count on it..the Republicans will be in appeasement mode (no hard questions about "international law").<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[robbbc]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> I guess we'll see if the Dems were telling the truth with
> their "no filibuster" pledge. More likely, they'll weasel
> out of it with the "this is an extreme case" excuse.
>
Not all the democrats (or republicans) signed the "no-filibuster" pledge. What would be more of an "extreme case" than a supreme court nomination?

Even then, the pledge requires that the senate be consulted. If Bush refuses to do so (which he has failed to do in the past) then the pledge is void. Bush did not sign the pledge, neither did most republicans and democrats in the senate. IMHO the Bush administration appears to have opposed it from the get-go...why would anyone feel beholden to the damn thing with that kind of support.

The senate is a body in which a minority of Americans (those from low population states) can effect the outcome of legislation. Because of malapportionment in the senate, and the lack of any check or balance in the form of the House- it is logical to conclude that the use of the filibuster is most appropriate in determinations for the federal bench. Even more so than for legislation- were it has been used for years without comment. If the filibuster is acceptable at all (which the republicans used often when they were in the minority) then it is in judical nominations. IMHO Republicans certainly would have used it had they had the need or desire (they either had a republican president or they were in the majority or the candidate was not "an extreme case"- making the use of the filibuster unnecessary).

Imagine a president elected by a minority of Americans (and a non-plurality) and a group of senators disproportionately elected from low population states who have received fewer votes than the senators from high population states, determining who is seated on the federal bench. No need to imagine it; it occured from 2001-2005. Today the only difference is that the president has received a small majority/plurality of votes.

 

[2001]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> > I guess we'll see if the Dems were telling the truth with
> > their "no filibuster" pledge. More likely, they'll weasel
>
> > out of it with the "this is an extreme case" excuse.
> >
> Not all the democrats (or republicans) signed the
> "no-filibuster" pledge. What would be more of an "extreme
> case" than a supreme court nomination?
>
> Even then, the pledge requires that the senate be consulted.
> If Bush refuses to do so (which he has failed to do in the
> past) then the pledge is void. Bush did not sign the pledge,
> neither did most republicans and democrats in the senate.
> IMHO the Bush administration appears to have opposed it from
> the get-go...why would anyone feel beholden to the damn
> thing with that kind of support.
>
> The senate is a body in which a minority of Americans (those
> from low population states) can effect the outcome of
> legislation. Because of malapportionment in the senate, and
> the lack of any check or balance in the form of the House-
> it is logical to conclude that the use of the filibuster is
> most appropriate in determinations for the federal bench.
> Even more so than for legislation- were it has been used for
> years without comment. If the filibuster is acceptable at
> all (which the republicans used often when they were in the
> minority) then it is in judical nominations. IMHO
> Republicans certainly would have used it had they had the
> need or desire (they either had a republican president or
> they were in the majority or the candidate was not "an
> extreme case"- making the use of the filibuster
> unnecessary).
>
> Imagine a president elected by a minority of Americans (and
> a non-plurality) and a group of senators disproportionately
> elected from low population states who have received fewer
> votes than the senators from high population states,
> determining who is seated on the federal bench. No need to
> imagine it; it occured from 2001-2005. Today the only
> difference is that the president has received a small
> majority/plurality of votes.
>
...Yes, and that my friend, is why the United States of America is a republic. We do things in this country by the will of the state, not the will of the individual. A president doesn't have to be elected by the majority of individual votes. And a US Senator from a sparsely populated state like Wyoming has as much power and influence as a US Senator from a heavily populated state like New York or California.----And that is as it should be!

 

[954]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> And for
> those who are liberal who post here, some of your faves like
> MoveOn.org and People for The American Way are in battle
> mode just as Family Reseach Council, American Family
> Association et al are geared on the conservative side.

That's the scary part. Two groups of extremists.
None of those groups you mentioned is worth a bucket of spit.

Both sides are for choice some of the time and against
choice on most other issues. The only difference is which
issues.

No matter who wins, we lose.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Just posted: JULY RADIO NEWS</P>

 

[robbbc]

Re: Wild-Ass Guess

> ...Yes, and that my friend, is why the United States of
> America is a republic. We do things in this country by the
> will of the state, not the will of the individual. A
> president doesn't have to be elected by the majority of
> individual votes. And a US Senator from a sparsely populated
> state like Wyoming has as much power and influence as a US
> Senator from a heavily populated state like New York or
> California.----And that is as it should be!
>
A very good point to make- although whether that is a good or bad thing is debatable; many, myself included, prefer democracies to republics. The premise of my argument (although it was a bit buried) is that *if* the filibuster is OK to use on legislation, even when that legislation was approved by a majority in the house (a far more representative body than the senate, though imperfectly so)- then it follows that nominations for jurists put on the federal bench withhout any input from the House should not be above such legislative rules.