TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

quote:

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring. O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor. It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice. "This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an 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." O'Connor's appointment came amid speculation that the aging court would soon have a vacancy. But speculation has most recently focused on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, and suffering from thyroid cancer. Rehnquist has offered no public clue as to his plans. The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices. Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles. Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father. O'Connor's appointment in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, quickly confirmed by the Senate, ended 191 years of male exclusivity on the high court. She wasted little time building a reputation as a hard-working moderate conservative who emerged as a crucial power broker on the nine-member court. O'Connor often lines up with the court's conservative bloc, as she did in 2000 when the court voted to stop Florida presidential ballot recounts sought by Al Gore, and effectively called the election for President Bush. As a "swing voter," however, O'Connor sometimes votes with more liberal colleagues. Perhaps the best example of her influence is the court's evolving stance on abortion. She distanced herself both from her three most conservative colleagues, who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion, and from more liberal justices for whom the right is a given. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

America and 'justice'.. wrong combo.

I believe the recent Eminent Domain case is probably a swing factor in her decision.

Can someone explain to me why the president has the power to select supreme court judges in the US? Shouldn't the legislative and judicial branches be kept as seperate as possible?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Can someone explain to me why the president has the power to select supreme court judges in the US? Shouldn't the legislative and judicial branches be kept as seperate as possible?

It's part of the checks and balances that each branch have over each other. The President nominates, but needs the Senate's approval, so both branches have a means of oversight over the Supreme Court.

what he said.

the executive nominates,

the legislative approves,

(both BTW, elected by the populus)

the executive appoints.

they are, in fact, "as seperate as possible". unless you want judges to be popularly elected.

there are caveats that deal with out-of-session legislature or an executive incapacity.

is it just me or do supreme court justices in the US have some celebrity factor about them? Are they household names or something, because here in Australia we couldnt give a shit who's at the top of our High Court

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo they are, in fact, "as seperate as possible". unless you want judges to be popularly elected.

Not really. If the party of the president has control of the senate (as is the case in the US at the moment) then he can basically choose who he likes. The fact that Bush is able, theoretically at least, to select a judge that represents his conservative slant on political issues is ridiculous. The judicial branch is the only one that's capable of limiting the powers of the legislative branch, and if the judges are elected by the legislative branch and you end up with a situation where both branches are - to a degree - politically homogenous, then where are the checks and balances? The supreme court decides which pieces of legislation are constitutional and if the legislative branch selects judges on the basis of how they know (or, at least, strongly presume) they're likely to vote on certain issues, then surely, in this system, there's an encroachment on the separation between the two branches?

The judges, as I'm sure we all agree, should be there to impartially interpret law. The fact it is possible to elect a supreme court judge with known political bias really is quite extraordinary. We've seen how important the supreme court has been recently in keeping the Bush administration in check (with regard to Terri Schiavo, Guantanamo Bay etc.) so what happens when Bush gets one or two more of his guys in there? It's effectively Bush (or at least the Republican controlled senate) deciding for themselves what they think should or should not be admitted constitutionally. Given this, I'll ask again: where are the checks and balances? Why should this be allowed to happen?

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz is it just me or do supreme court justices in the US have some celebrity factor about them? Are they household names or something, because here in Australia we couldnt give a shit who's at the top of our High Court

Exactly. You rarely hear about political slants in the Australian High Court because the processes for electing judges is a lot more complicated and involves many more political bodies. Ultimately, the government still gets a say in who is elected, but - unlike the US - the election of a High Court judge cannot easily be tainted by political bias given the constitutional and legal checks involved in the nomination and appointment process. I'm not arguing the the Australian system is perfect (nor do I claim to perfectly understand it, because it is rather complex) but - like I said - the system has, at least, ensured that none of the Australian High Court judges have a noticable bias or a predilection to vote a certain way on certain issues.

So, I'll ask again: is there any reason why the US system is the way it is? Wouldn't it be better to take away at least some of the absolute power the US legislative branch has to nominate SCOTUS judges in the interests of impartiality?

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Well seeing that they wield quite a bit of power... I dont know how much power your high court has in Australia, but the high court here can affect anything and anyone.

The Australian High Court deals only with constitutional matters, which, I think, is the same as the Supreme Court in the US?

So yes, the High Court here has as much power as the Supreme Court in the US...

This is a pretty big shock. Most folks thought Rhenquist would be the first to go. But to have a moderate Conservative come out who was such a huge swing voter on so many major decisions is going to be a pretty big position to fill. Obviously the Dems. are fired up as shit for this as they will likely filibuster any nominee that's considered too far to the Right. But of course, that's exactly what Dobson-owned Bush will likely try to shoe in.

So I wonder if Bush will actually talk with the Dems. on this? After, the Constitution does say "advise" with the "consent" part, doesn't it? And that doesn't just mean "advise" with your class pets in the Senate, does it?

I mean, if you want to see what that means when a Democratic president was in charge, look no further than Clinton with Orrin Hatch. From Hatch's autobiography:

quote:

I told him [Clinton] that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court. Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg. I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration. In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/046...%3D#reader-page

You're smokin' cat shit if you really think this will be reciprocated by Dobson-owned Bush.

BUT,

but, here's the thing. First, Bush is suckin' wind in the polls as of late, which may not be too much of a difference to him - but it is a significant difference to the GOP Senators, who's '06 run is comin' up soon. Second, polls strongly suggest the American people want a moderate in the courts, even Republicans. For example, from Atrios:

quote:

CNN just flashed up poll results regarding Roe. 65% want a justice who would uphold Roe. 47% of Republicans want a justice who would uphold Roe (verus 46% who want one who would overturn it). http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_...024996601196214

And lastly, and I'll talk about this in a new thread that I'm about to open up - Bush is about to take a pretty serious hit with his national security advisor likely to be going down for the Plame leak. This has got the Dems. drooling like dogs:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thebl...s-cov_3556.html

So IOW, if times were different for Bush and things were a bit more rosy, I think he'd probably have better luck trying to shoe in an extremist Conservative as a SCJ. But that ain't the times right now, so that might actually work in the rest of our country's favor for him to nominate someone who's actually in the best interests of our country. Here's to hoping.....

It is been reported that Bush will appoint attorney general Alberto Gonzales to this vacant post, he is a moderate.

But many conservative groups are lobbying against him!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4646499.stm

I kept believing the filibuster deal by the Democrats was a rotten one. It created a litmus test of who can and can't be filibustered when they allowed the 3 most extremist of conservatives to go through a full vote. And sure as shit, the GOP now uses this litmus test as a means against the Dems. for a SC Justice nominee:

quote:

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5070301146.html

I said it then and I say it now - Reid should have pushed the fucking nuke button. Regardless, the public wants the Dems. to fight, and they want a moderate nominee. If the Dems. don't put up this fight, they'll continue to remain looking weak in the public eye.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Not really. If the party of the president has control of the senate (as is the case in the US at the moment) then he can basically choose who he likes. The fact that Bush is able, theoretically at least, to select a judge that represents his conservative slant on political issues is ridiculous. The judicial branch is the only one that's capable of limiting the powers of the legislative branch, and if the judges are elected by the legislative branch and you end up with a situation where both branches are - to a degree - politically homogenous, then where are the checks and balances? The supreme court decides which pieces of legislation are constitutional and if the legislative branch selects judges on the basis of how they know (or, at least, strongly presume) they're likely to vote on certain issues, then surely, in this system, there's an encroachment on the separation between the two branches?

I agree with you. At the time the system was designed, political parties were not intended by most of those involved in the system's creation. Their existence essentially negates the effectiveness of the checks and balances originally intended. It was quite a bad mistake if you ask me, as the development of such political alliances was already quite evident at that time, even if they were far less formal.

hope they can fill the void that her departure has caused...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.