Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring

G

Guest

Guest
I'm sure a replacement will be found that will be agreeable to all, as our government works together as reasonable people putting the rule of law and reason first.
 
Ted-E-Bare said:
I'm sure a replacement will be found that will be agreeable to all, as our government works together as reasonable people putting the rule of law and reason first.


yeah right!!!!! and I got a bridge to sell too.... cheap!!!!
 
minsue said:
Oh, fuck.

while I approve of yer sentiment... I seem incapable of finding anyone who wants to share that particular experience wiff me...sigh
 
Things will definitely get interesting. She was the true moderate voice of the court.

Here's what I think:

Bush will nominate a moderate to replace her. With all of the fighting going on over Judicial appointments right now, both sides will be willing to replace a moderate with a moderate.

There will probably be two more vacancies during Bush's remaining time. Rhenquist has cancer, and Stevens is 85. Odds are good that both will be step down sooner rather than later. Bush will have an easy go of it getting a moderate to replace O'Connor, then will buckle down for a fight to get conservatives for these other two spots. The next two years will be a telling time in the American legal system. The entire balance of the court could be shifted. Giving the moderate first would ease the path for getting the people he wants for the other two slots.

That's my opinon, and I'm sticking to it. :D
 
We've come to know Bush quite well in the four 1/2 years he's been president. If there has been a true loser during his term as president, it would be the moderate. The left wing get more people and funds. The radical right gets everything they always dreamed of. The moderates get the shaft.

Bush will not nominate a moderate. Expect more divisiveness.
 
Couture said:
We've come to know Bush quite well in the four 1/2 years he's been president. If there has been a true loser during his term as president, it would be the moderate. The left wing get more people and funds. The radical right gets everything they always dreamed of. The moderates get the shaft.

Bush will not nominate a moderate. Expect more divisiveness.

I'll bet you $1 that it's a moderate nominated to replace O'Connor. Pure conservatives to follow. LOL
 
I don't ever see Bush nominating a real conservative, only a radical neo-con, someone real conservatives would shudder at. Maybe a born again Randist.
 
O'connor leaving is dreadful. We expected Renquist to go. That wouldn't hurt too much as he is usually with the conservatives. But O'connor was a swing vote, a moderate and one of the important votes in support of Abortion rights.

Bush will nominate a rabid ultra conservative, most likely a minority of some kind, if he holds true to form.
 
cantdog said:
I don't ever see Bush nominating a real conservative, only a radical neo-con, someone real conservatives would shudder at. Maybe a born again Randist.

We know someone like that. Amicus? Oh amicus?

Think the White House will give us a finder's fee?
 
Karl Rove is nominating a neo-con.

Uh, I mean Bush is going to nominate a neo-con.

People can count, Roe v. Wade is vulnerable... Bush and his cronies owe TOO much to the religious right not to put at LEAST an anti-abortion justice.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Bush will nominate a rabid ultra conservative, most likely a minority of some kind, if he holds true to form.

Colly's right. Not surprising. :)

While I wish Wildcard were right (because it would give us at least one moderate on the bench) there's no way in hell Bush will pass up the opportunity to pull someone out of his pocket for the nomination.

Sad days ahead, I'm afraid.
 
I'm telling all of you...........I'm gonna file this one away for "na nah na na nah na, I told you so" purposes. One moderate followed by two ultra conservatives.

The moderate will be a faux peace offering to end the filibustering over his current nominees for other judgeships. The moderate will be accepted by both sides as a means to end the current judicial squabbles and move on to something else. You've gotta admit, a Supreme court nominee does sweeten the pot for trying to make a deal.

After all that is said and done, Rhenquist and Stevens will step down. The Dems will have used their ammunition by dropping the filibusters in the nominee to replace O'Connor deal, and Bush will push two ultra conservatives into the nominations.

You heard it here first. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until events prove me wrong. LOL
 
Wildcard Ky said:
I'm telling all of you...........I'm gonna file this one away for "na nah na na nah na, I told you so" purposes. One moderate followed by two ultra conservatives.

The moderate will be a faux peace offering to end the filibustering over his current nominees for other judgeships. The moderate will be accepted by both sides as a means to end the current judicial squabbles and move on to something else. You've gotta admit, a Supreme court nominee does sweeten the pot for trying to make a deal.

After all that is said and done, Rhenquist and Stevens will step down. The Dems will have used their ammunition by dropping the filibusters in the nominee to replace O'Connor deal, and Bush will push two ultra conservatives into the nominations.

You heard it here first. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until events prove me wrong. LOL

Bush is a lame duck president.

The longer he waits to get a nomination of his type of justice in... the harder the Dems can afford to fight him.

Fight the hard fight now... two conservatives and then towards the end throw in the moderate when it no longer matters.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
what next

Anyone ready for Gonzales, or someone of his ilk. I vote with the 'right wing' predictors.

As to O'Connor. A mixed legacy, but yes, I'd want her over Gonzales. According to Dworkin, in NYRB, her decisions (votes with the majority) on the recent civil rights cases (re Padilla, Guantanamo, etc.) upheld the general 'commander in chief' arguments, and allowed for the military to set up its own special tribunals.
As well, she apparently argued for 'reverse onus' on terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield (i.e., they should prove innocence, if they don't want to be incarcerated forever).

In her prime, she certainly advanced human and women's rights.
 
What Wildcard said would be the smart thing. It would be the best situation all around. I just can't bring myself to count on GWB to do the smart thing. I'm sure he'll make the power grab immediately. I hope I'm wrong, but if his past record is any indication that is what he'll do.
 
mack_the_knife said:
And Kerry would be planning to nominate a moderate, right?


In all honesty, yes, he would. Not because he would ewant to, lord knows, he would like someone left of Marshall. But his selection would have to get past a solidly hostile senate so he would have no choice but to appoint a moderate.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
In all honesty, yes, he would. Not because he would ewant to, lord knows, he would like someone left of Marshall. But his selection would have to get past a solidly hostile senate so he would have no choice but to appoint a moderate.
What she said.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
In all honesty, yes, he would. Not because he would ewant to, lord knows, he would like someone left of Marshall. But his selection would have to get past a solidly hostile senate so he would have no choice but to appoint a moderate.
I suppose that is true, especially after the now established policy of filibustering judicial nominees.
That's my 2 political posts a week, I'll be back to social/literature issues now.
 
Too much!

I can't let this fine thread die without noting something I found surprising.

Today's paper articles say "Conservatives attack Gonzales as unreliable". Some are lobbying against him suspecting his views on abortion are not set in stone.

So a main architect of fascism, of indefinite detentions, of novel categories of 'disappeared' people, 'unlawful combatants' and legal advocate for Bush's imperial authority is *NOT conservative enough!*


So maybe it goes to Emilio Garza, or GWB's Mexican gardener.
 
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas said:
Bush will nominate a rabid ultra conservative, most likely a minority of some kind, if he holds true to form.
Needs to be either a woman (to keep the balance with O'Connor leaving) or a Latino (probably easier to find a hard-liner, deeply religious).

Although he'll likely lead with an ultra-conservative, who will get shot down. He'll follow with a SLIGHTLY more moderate minority or woman who will be difficult politically to stop. At least that's how I'd play it if I shared his agenda.

Oh and I'll be SHOCKED if he gets to replace three justices in three years. Someone will have to die suddenly for it to happen. I've read rumors Rehnquist doesn't care for Bush, which would make sense as he's much more of a libertarian than a NeoCon.
 
I have to disagree with Wildcard and agree with Colly. I do so because Bush has shown no sign of ever appealing to the moderates or "making peace" for nominees. He puts forth a Constitution-raper who is ideally some minority and then whines whines whines when people complain about the nazi tatt on the forehead and the "Die Piggy" incident in the past.

The neo-cons subverted democracy and exploited a national tragedy to secure this power, they're looking to spend before the masses finally take notice and arm those pretty pretty second-amendment protected armaments. Bang Bang.
 
I think it's worth noting some of the decisions (5-4 decisions, in particular) that O'Connor had which cemented her legacy. Remember, she was appointed by Reagan, so keep that in context.

(Now, I know most of you have as little interest in the Supreme Court Justices as a bowl of fish. I am a devout political junkie. Skip this thread, now. I know 90% of you can name the entire cast of Friends before you can name even three members of the Supreme Court. Fuck it, if you haven't left yet then here's more: )

Stenberg v. Carhart: 5-4 overturn of a state ban on partial-birth abortion.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky: Prohibited displays of 10 Commandments on governmental property.

Alaske Dept of Environmental Conservationism v. EPA: The court said that EPA could step in ... well, forget the particulars, it was another victory for the tree huggers.

Rush HMO v. Moran: It turns out patients are entled to a second opinion, even if their HMO says otherwise.

Hunt v. Cromaritie: Too tough to explain to the Entertainment Tonight crowd, this one had to do with redistricting according to race.

Tennessee v. Lane: I guess the feebs and crips are allowed to use our courtrooms after all.

Lee v. Weisman: Hey! Government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduation events. Get it?

I'll weigh in with my cheat-sheet of nominees (get your money down now)shortly. Until then, Sandy, we'll miss ya.
 
Last edited:
dreampilot79 said:
yeah right!!!!! and I got a bridge to sell too.... cheap!!!!

And five minutes before I saw this, I read in the NYT that Bush is being hounded because he wants to appoint a neo-liberal.

Can someone explain!? :confused:
 
Back
Top