Supreme Court Justice O'Connor submits resignation

[InspectorGadget]

I can't wait to see who W picks as her replacement.

Discuss.

[Benny Profane]

oh boy, here we go! battle royale begins.

[girlski0912]

Ha...I was just posting the same thread. She was our liberal swing vote and I am sure that GWB is dancing a jig over this one.

One appointment that they mentioned is from the Texas Supreme Court (I believe, Texas government official atleast) and was seen as not quite conservative enough. He is Pro-Life (which is exactly what the female population is fearing) and they compared him to Justice Souter, who was BLATANTLY Pro-Life.

It is only one position, but the impact of the Sup. Ct. opinions is bound to change with just one person. This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...

[Below Zero]

I'm still waiting to wake up from this bad dream! It just keeps getting worse!

[Dexter Rutecki]

This really sucks. I just hope he's as stupid with this nomination as he's been with some of the Federal Judges, causes a Senate fiasco, and costs the Repubs their majority.

[CUBUCK]

Why doesn't anybody think a person can hold personal opinions but and not let that interfere with their interpretations of the constitution.

There have been pro-life justices before and as far as I know they have never looked to overturn Roe v Wade.

Regardless it should be an interesting next few months as I would assume Rehnquist is going to retire as well. Should make for an interesting summer here on TGR Crossfire

[Dexter Rutecki]

Why doesn't anybody think a person can hold personal opinions but and not let that interfere with their interpretations of the constitution.

It's not that those people aren't out there, but Bush has shown that he'll tenaciously stick to nominations of hard-right activist judges who try to use the bench to do what legislatures won't. I definitely believe he'll nominate someone who will vote against Roe (although you won't get that out of them at the hearings), even if he thinks it will be a big battle.

[shamrockpow]

Congrats to the first feminina on the court. It could get real ugly from here on out. Girlski: isn't Gonzales the same guy who wrote the torture memo? Do you really think Bush wants all the talk to be about that during confirmation hearings?

[Core Shot]

When the fuck is Stevens going to retire.
He's fucking 85 years old, dammit!
Rehnquist is 80 and dying!

O'connor is a young 75.
I sure will miss "our conservative swing vote"
rarely ideological and dogmatic, she was never afraid to follow a reasonable middle ground. One of the best justices, particularly as a swing vote.

[cj001f]

Why doesn't anybody think a person can hold personal opinions but and not let that interfere with their interpretations of the constitution.

Because they are being chosen on their interpretations of the law?

[CUBUCK]

Because they are being chosen on their interpretations of the law?

ok maybe I worded it the wrong way. What I am after is I am morally against abortion and I can't think of any circumstance where I would ask my gf/wife/whatever to have one. But at the same time I understand, respect, and believe it is ultimately her decision and would not interfere with that. Make sense? Maybe I have too much faith in that people can hold personal biases back when it is for a greater good.

[bklyn]

Damn Damn Damn Damn DAMN! [/Florida Evans]

[grrrr]

Sandra Day was one of the best legacies of Reagan. Based her votes on careful consideration of the issue - not on ideology.

One can only hope the next justice will be near as good.

[SteepnDeep]

Ha...I was just posting the same thread. She was our liberal swing vote and I am sure that GWB is dancing a jig over this one.

One appointment that they mentioned is from the Texas Supreme Court (I believe, Texas government official atleast) and was seen as not quite conservative enough. He is Pro-Life (which is exactly what the female population is fearing) and they compared him to Justice Souter, who was BLATANTLY Pro-Life.

It is only one position, but the impact of the Sup. Ct. opinions is bound to change with just one person. This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...

You speak for the entire female population? Why do people think just men are against abortion (I know, the men are the hard-core psycho ones). Plenty of gals I know think it's outright wrong. Don't want to debate the issue but their is a sizable minority against it. note: I have always leaned slightly to the choice side.

I am sure Rove has some diabolical plan to get their guy in. Something like nominating a hard right no-chance nominee on the 1st try knowing al the pressure is on the Dems for #2 (the guy the Bush team really wants). The Dems don't have a Rove on their team yet...

[Bud Green]

He is Pro-Life

So that means he's against the death penalty?

I'm pro-life: against the death penalty and the war in Iraq (and killing people abroad for corporate gain). 'Pro-life" is a total misnomer. It should be called 'anti-abortion' or 'anti-freedom' or 'hypocritical right-wing steeze' or 'confused Jesus-lover'. At least the Catholics are consistent on this point.

[Core Shot]

Damn Damn Damn Damn DAMN! [/Florida Evans]

Policeman: J.J. you fit the description of the suspect -- a tall, skinny, young, Black man.

Florida: You just described most of Chicago!

Michael: We gotta take this to the Supreme Court! They got a Black judge there, and he don't fool around like y'all do!




[note to younger maggots, he ain't referring to Justice Thomas ]

[mr_gyptian]

heh, this is gonna be fun.

unfortunately I don't have the confidence I once had in a nominee that takes federalism seriously being nominated and then confirmed. oh, and the nukular(sic) option will happen within 45 days.

[shmerham]

Between my limited understanding of the justice system and rumors something's conflicting. My feeling is that the chances of roe v. wade being overturned is extremely unlikely.

Wouldn't there have to be a bulletproof reason to overturn roe v. wade? Wouldn't the courts have to first determine that a fetus is a life or something? Also, has it even come up for vote since roe v. wade?

I only took one civics class in high school, but my understanding is that it would be really difficult to overturn a previous decision and in doing so, the justices would be such a minor part.

Discuss?

[shmerham]

One more question: How much room for interpretation do the justices have? Do they basically get to vote how they feel, or is the system such that the impact of their biases is marginal?

TGR is for learning!

[Core Shot]

One more question: How much room for interpretation do the justices have? Do they basically get to vote how they feel, or is the system such that the impact of their biases is marginal?

TGR is for learning!

They can do anything they want, for any reason.
they are appointed for life, so no one can make them stop.

The only thing that keeps them in check, is their own sense of decency, their personal legal philosophy and their desire to leave a legacy in the history books.

As for Roe v. Wade, they have revisited it several times, and could reverse it if they want to. So far, they have only been chipping away at it, allowing certain restrictions such as parental consent. Just because they chip away at it, however, does not mean they want to reverse it.
"Stare Decisis" is the latin mumbo jumbo for not overturning prior decisions, but it is not as strong as it used to be.

[Mcwop]

Between my limited understanding of the justice system and rumors something's conflicting. My feeling is that the chances of roe v. wade being overturned is extremely unlikely.

Wouldn't there have to be a bulletproof reason to overturn roe v. wade? Wouldn't the courts have to first determine that a fetus is a life or something? Also, has it even come up for vote since roe v. wade?

I only took one civics class in high school, but my understanding is that it would be really difficult to overturn a previous decision and in doing so, the justices would be such a minor part.

Discuss?

I think RvW was based on a right to privacy.

[13]

Ruh roh. Here comes a shitstorm.

[KillingCokes]

I expect Bush to appoint someone controversial and expect an "up or down vote". Funny thing about that is that it's the senate that decides, not the house where all they have is the up or down vote. It's amazing how much foresight the founding fathers had. They understood the need for super majority and the need to carefullly consider lifetime appointments. Bush and the idiots are merely trying to bull their way past the standards created by our founders.
The democrats must stand their ground on this. If the nomination is unacceptable they must fillibuster and if frist uses the nuclear option the Dems must shut down the senate for the duration. Anything less would not be in keeping with the intentions of the founders and would be a victory for the degradation of America as a whole

[webb]

She was our liberal swing vote

she was a moderate swing vote. the reason she was a "swing" vote was because she was in the middle and would swing back and forth...

One appointment that they mentioned is from the Texas Supreme Court (I believe, Texas government official atleast) and was seen as not quite conservative enough. He is Pro-Life (which is exactly what the female population is fearing) and they compared him to Justice Souter, who was BLATANTLY Pro-Life.

Souter was another centrist. in fact, he voted the same way as o'connor close to thirty times, which has never happened before. while he was pro-life, he felt that roe vs. wade could not be overturned, which is the same position held by alberto gonzales-

This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...

look for gonzales to get resistance from the far left, because of his, well, evilness, but will probably be approved by moderate democrats and republicans because he is by far the most moderate canidate on the grounds of abortion and gay rights. but he's going to have alot of conservatives fighting him as well.

in terms of domestic policies, gonzales is the best we're going to see. but his appointment could be a disaster on an international level. you know, since he was the one who created legal backing for the US to torture POWs.

[Dexter Rutecki]

It would be absolutely incredible to have a 'legal mind' like that of Gonzalez nominated, but it's probably going to happen. Ask any decent constitutional law prof. what they think of the torture memo if you really want to hear something bashed.