Sandra Day O'Connor retires from Supreme Court

[BigCombo]

Yahoo News "Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly."

So long abortion...

[August 18th]

who gives a fuck.

[2NaFish]

who gives a fuck.

don't be a dick. Just because you dont care doesnt mean others dont.

[GnRNightrain]

Big news. I will be following this closely.  It is going to be quite a fight.  I hope Gonzales isnt Bush's choice, however, Ill bet he is.

[GnRNightrain]

Here is someone I had heard mentioned before:

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html
Michael McConnell

I have ready many of his article, and the guy is quite brilliant.

[Sterlingdog]

Well we all knew (or should have known) that when Bush was re-elected he would most likely get to appoint at least 2 justices.  I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.  (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general). 

[August 18th]

i think it's time we had a black woman in the supreme court. it's a disgrace how african american women in particular are ignored when it comes to working within the legal system. it only happens on tv. it's a disgrace really, that this is two-thousand-and-fucking-five, and no black women in top positions except condolezza rice. of course there should be more black men too, but particularly black women are ignored, as they were in the 2000 elections in florida. it's a fucking disgrace.

[GnRNightrain]

I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.? (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general).?

What exactly do you mean by that?

[GnRNightrain]

i think it's time we had a black woman in the supreme court. it's a disgrace how african american women in particular are ignored when it comes to working within the legal system. it only happens on tv. it's a disgrace really, that this is two-thousand-and-fucking-five, and no black women in top positions except condolezza rice. of course there should be more black men too, but particularly black women are ignored, as they were in the 2000 elections in florida. it's a fucking disgrace.

I thought you didnt give a fuck? 

[Sterlingdog]

I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.? (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general).?

What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean Bush is likely to appoint justices who will advance his political, and very religous, agenda.  The justices he appoints will be around long after he is and the damage this could do to our freedom is permanent.  Of course if you are a supporter of his, you won't see it this way.

[sandman]

i wouldn't worry too much about the abortion issue. i honestly believe the republicans want to keep it legal for two main reasons:

1. having it legal motivates their base and increases voter turnout.
2. the people having abortions are primarily democrats. and their children (which they are aborting) would likely be democrats as well. so abortions get rid of votes for the democratic party.

and you're worried about "damage to our freedom"? and people on here think ONLY conservatives use propaganda. 

[Sterlingdog]

i wouldn't worry too much about the abortion issue. i honestly believe the republicans want to keep it legal for two main reasons:

1. having it legal motivates their base and increases voter turnout.
2. the people having abortions are primarily democrats. and their children (which they are aborting) would likely be democrats as well. so abortions get rid of votes for the democratic party.

and you're worried about "damage to our freedom"? and people on here think ONLY conservatives use propaganda.?

Those are some of the most amusing arguments I've heard about the abotion issue.  WOOHOO let's let teenage democrats kill their democrat babies!  That's cool, I'm sure that's what republicans think.

And for the record, I'm neither conservative nor liberal.  But I do fear the religous right.

[GnRNightrain]

I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.? (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general).?

What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean Bush is likely to appoint justices who will advance his political, and very religous, agenda.? The justices he appoints will be around long after he is and the damage this could do to our freedom is permanent.? Of course if you are a supporter of his, you won't see it this way.

Well, I think he has always said that he will appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.? Such justices would exclude both liberal and conservative activists.? Of course, the original meaning of the Constitution isnt as anti-religion as you may prefer.?

It isnt the Court's role to act as an oligarchy and inflict their personal views on the American people.? Of course many on the left nor the right want judges that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, both want people that will legislate from the bench.? That way they dont have to persuade their fellow citizens; they only have to get four justices that are willing to place their view points of what they want the Constitution to mean over what it actually means.? Of course to those that dont like the original meaning of the Constitution and our 200 year history of government observance of religion, then persuade your fellow citizens and get it changed.

[Sterlingdog]

Well, I think he has always said that he will appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.? Such justices would exclude both liberal and conservative activists.?

Of course he would say that, he's a politician.  But I know you aren't naive enough to think that he's going to appoint anyone other than a conservative, likely to interpret the constitution the way he wants.   I'm not saying democrats are any different in that regard, its the way things are done in this country.  I know what the job of the supreme court is supposed to be, but on certain issues (like abortion), we all know that they interpret the constitution along their own political and moral values.  We can pretend that the system is perfect and it doesn't happen that way, but then we are just fooling ourselves. 

And while you seem to have judged me "anti-religous", I'm actually not.  I simply don't care what anyone's religion is.  I don't care if the word "God" is in the pledge of allegience, I don't care if its on our money.  It hurts no one, and there's value to tradition.  I do care when our government starts trying to legislate our morals, however.  When I refer to the religious right, I mean the extremists, and I believe they are gaining an alarming amount of power in our country right now. 

[GnRNightrain]

Well, I think he has always said that he will appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.? Such justices would exclude both liberal and conservative activists.?

Of course he would say that, he's a politician.? But I know you aren't naive enough to think that he's going to appoint anyone other than a conservative, likely to interpret the constitution the way he wants.? ?I'm not saying democrats are any different in that regard, its the way things are done in this country.? I know what the job of the supreme court is supposed to be, but on certain issues (like abortion), we all know that they interpret the constitution along their own political and moral values.? We can pretend that the system is perfect and it doesn't happen that way, but then we are just fooling ourselves.?

Well, on issues such as abortion the court is just wrong.  Roe v. Wade is a horrible decision legally and has no basis in the text nor history.  I think he will appoint an originalist, and if he does so then I will be happy.  The fact is our judiciary is supposed to be conservative (as in only interpret according to the text).  They are not supposed to be the body of change in our system.  Too bad some of the justices on the Supreme Court have not figured that out.

And while you seem to have judged me "anti-religous", I'm actually not.? I simply don't care what anyone's religion is.? I don't care if the word "God" is in the pledge of allegience, I don't care if its on our money.? It hurts no one, and there's value to tradition.? I do care when our government starts trying to legislate our morals, however.? When I refer to the religious right, I mean the extremists, and I believe they are gaining an alarming amount of power in our country right now.?

I never meant that you were anti-religious.  However, Im sure the original meaning is more comfortable with the role of religion in the government than many people would like.

[sandman]

here's a good article on the situation. i'm a big fan of this writer. his views are left of center, but he's usually very fair in his analysis.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/12042636.htm

Get ready for war of the words over court

By Dick Polman
Inquirer Political Analyst

A lit match has been tossed into the combustible world of Washington politics.

Partisans on the left and right have long been spoiling for a fight over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, and now passions have finally been ignited. The retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor opens a seat for the first time in 11 years, and virtually guarantees an ideological bloodbath.

Get ready for War of the Words, a summer blockbuster that could play for months, as special-interest groups with deep pockets hammer their talking points in 30-second ads on a TV near you. The word in Washington is that conservative groups alone are poised to spend at least $20 million, in hopes of selling citizens on the merits of a more rightward high court - one that would end legal abortion and lower the wall between church and state.

And since President Bush isn't likely to alienate his core followers - at a time when he needs their help to weather his mounting travails in Iraq - a strong conservative nominee is widely anticipated. Plus, he has 55 GOP senators to back him up. According to analyst Alan Abramowitz, a court watcher at Emory University, "We could see a decisive swing to the right, on a lot of issues that people care a lot about."

And Neil Siegel, a Duke University law professor who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said Friday, "This [retirement] isn't just significant, this is seismic."

Such are the stakes, because O'Connor's retirement is more significant than a departure by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He has generally been a reliable conservative vote, meaning that to replace him with a conservative probably wouldn't change the court's composition. O'Connor, by contrast, was not so reliable.

Despite the fact that she was a Ronald Reagan appointee, she was a swing vote who frequently sided with the liberal bloc in key 5-4 rulings that angered conservative activists. Among other things, she helped uphold affirmative action, federal environmental enforcement, and legal aid for the poor. Last Monday, she was the swing vote banning the Ten Commandments inside courthouses. In 2000, she was the swing vote striking down a Nebraska law requiring that parents be notified of a daughter's abortion. In fact, during her tenure, she repeatedly upheld the right to a legal abortion.

That's why conservatives are glad she is leaving. And now, having essentially clinched Bush's reelection, they await their reward. They expect Bush to replace O'Connor with somebody who will swing those 5-4 rulings the other way and usher in a true conservative era in the judiciary, thus completing the conservative takeover of all federal branches.

Religious conservative leader D. James Kennedy said Friday that O'Connor was often "gravely mistaken" and announced that the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ will petition the White House with 200,000 signatures. He was echoed Friday by Gary Bauer, another religious-right leader, who said: "So many Americans have given sweat, toil and tears [to reelect Bush] for precisely this moment. This is our time, our opportunity to restore balance to the Supreme Court and to end the hostility to our most deeply held values."

Bush isn't expected to unveil his nominee until after he returns from Europe on July 8, but the opposition is already locked and loaded for a fight. In fact, on Friday, O'Connor's retirement announcement was barely an hour old when the activists at MoveOn PAC unveiled a new TV ad that asks, "Will George Bush choose an extremist?" And they've already demonstrated that they can raise serious money virtually overnight.

The MoveOn warning will be echoed in the days ahead by the well-financed People for the American Way (which has a "war room" with 45 computers), the Alliance for Justice, and 70 affiliated liberal groups. The American Way group has even assembled a squad that looks like a political campaign team - including Joe Lockhart (former Clinton press secretary), Carter Eskew (former Al Gore adviser), and Mike Lux (former Clinton campaign aide).

Will Bush battle the enemy - or co-opt it by nominating a relative moderate? Siegel, the former high court clerk, said Friday that Bush "has it within his power to make this process much less destructive, painful and polarizing. He has the right to nominate anyone he wants."

Indeed, some conservatives are currently worried that Bush might actually opt to placate the opposition, out of a concern that a bloody Senate battle would stall the rest of his agenda and alienate those Americans who want action on jobs, health care, and the cost of gas, as opposed to caring a whit about the thrust and parry of ideological combat.

The right's fear is that Bush will name Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and in fact, White House leaks have been touting him lately, which is interesting, given that this White House rarely leaks anything.

Bush is drawn to the idea of naming the first Hispanic justice. But the big problem, for Bush's base, is that Gonzalez has long supported the right to legal abortion - which is why, according to columnist Robert Novak, the buzz about Gonzalez has sent conservatives "into spasms of fear and loathing."

But for many Washingtonians, the placation scenario simply doesn't fly. Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition lobbyist who now works at a centrist Democratic think tank, said that O'Connor's departure "is Armageddon, the ultimate confrontation, and the White House can't afford to disappoint the right without triggering open rebellion in the party."

Besides, he argues, "there is absolutely nothing in the chemistry of this White House to suggest that it will move to the center," especially considering that conservative interest groups have been meeting with the Republican National Committee to coordinate their moves and that one key conservative player, C. Boyden Gray, is close to Bush strategist Karl Rove.

So if Bush pushes hard, all kinds of hairy subplots could develop. The filibuster issue might even return, triggering a constitutional crisis of its own.

Back in May, senators struck a deal: The minority Senate Democrats could retain the right to filibuster (blocking a court nominee with endless debate, unless 60 of 100 senators agree to shut it down), in exchange for a pledge that Democrats would filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." But that phrase was not defined, and Democrats might decide that any antiabortion Bush Supreme Court nominee meets the standard.

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said, "If Bush tries to stuff down their throats a nominee who they reasonably view as unacceptable, Democrats will be willing to go to the precipice."

Some observers doubt the Democrats will take that step. But if they do, 51 of the 55 GOP senators (or 50 GOP senators, plus Vice President Cheney breaking the tie) could retaliate by detonating the "nuclear option" - a historic rule change that would erase the Democrats' right to filibuster. Interest groups on both sides have already spent millions creating and airing TV ads on this issue. Recent polls give the Democratic filibuster stance a slight edge.

But even before the court nominee reaches the Senate floor, subplots will abound in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where members with presidential ambitions - Delaware Democrat Joe Biden (who needs to court the liberals who vote heavily in primaries) and Kansas Republican Sam Brownback (a hero of the religious right) - will play to their respective party bases, potentially exacerbating the panel's divide.

And no wonder: The climactic battle has arrived, a campaign over a candidate with lifetime tenure, with all the rhetorical heat that we associate with modern presidential campaigns. Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century French commentator on American life, saw the future: "Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question."

[GnRNightrain]

I dont know what a moderate judge is?  I know I have used the term, but only to refer to other peoples' characterizations of the court.  Either you follow the actual Constitution, or you depart from it.  Those that depart from it are activists.  So I guess you could characterize a moderate as semi-activist; or an activist some of the time?  That certainly would have fit O'Connor.

[pilferk]

I dont know what a moderate judge is?? I know I have used the term, but only to refer to other peoples' characterizations of the court.? Either you follow the actual Constitution, or you depart from it.? Those that depart from it are activists.? So I guess you could characterize a moderate as semi-activist; or an activist some of the time?? That certainly would have fit O'Connor.

Well, that's a gross simplification if there ever was one.

In truth, there are two ways to interpret the constitution, and both are equally valid.? You are either an originalist (you believe in following every letter of the constitution as it is written) or you are a "Living constitutionalist" (you believe in following the spirit of the forefathers words as they apply to todays more modern society).? ?A moderate would be someone who applied both approaches, depending on their opinion of application and it's relevance.

Believing in a living constitution does not make you an activist.? To paint that picture is to politicize and vilify their viewpoint simply because you disagree with it.? Ditto with being an originalist: Interpreting in such a manner does not make you a right wing religious zealot.

[pilferk]

I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.? (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general).?

What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean Bush is likely to appoint justices who will advance his political, and very religous, agenda.? The justices he appoints will be around long after he is and the damage this could do to our freedom is permanent.? Of course if you are a supporter of his, you won't see it this way.

Well, I think he has always said that he will appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.? Such justices would exclude both liberal and conservative activists.? Of course, the original meaning of the Constitution isnt as anti-religion as you may prefer.?

It isnt the Court's role to act as an oligarchy and inflict their personal views on the American people.? Of course many on the left nor the right want judges that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, both want people that will legislate from the bench.? That way they dont have to persuade their fellow citizens; they only have to get four justices that are willing to place their view points of what they want the Constitution to mean over what it actually means.? Of course to those that dont like the original meaning of the Constitution and our 200 year history of government observance of religion, then persuade your fellow citizens and get it changed.

I have to admit, I find these comments to be particularly amusing.? You espouse a literal interpretation of the constitution (ie: originalist) yet completely ignore the piece of the Constitution that talks about the Seperation of Church and State powers.? Either you interpret ALL of the constitution literally, or you don't...picking and choosing which parts bolster your particular viewpoints is more the method of the politician, than the method of the Justice (moderate Justice's excluded, of course).

Yes, our country, it's forefathers,? it's history, and it's culture are deeply intertwined in religeon.? But that doesn't mean our laws should be.? It's an important distintion and one our forefathers were very quicky to articulate.? Even they saw the threat to equality, freedom, and liberty if you allowed one religion to legislate the people.? They fled from persecution for precisely that reason.

[GnRNightrain]

I'm afraid now we will see some very long term consequences to our actions.? (Not that I voted for him, but I mean Americans in general).?

What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean Bush is likely to appoint justices who will advance his political, and very religous, agenda.? The justices he appoints will be around long after he is and the damage this could do to our freedom is permanent.? Of course if you are a supporter of his, you won't see it this way.

Well, I think he has always said that he will appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.? Such justices would exclude both liberal and conservative activists.? Of course, the original meaning of the Constitution isnt as anti-religion as you may prefer.?

It isnt the Court's role to act as an oligarchy and inflict their personal views on the American people.? Of course many on the left nor the right want judges that will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, both want people that will legislate from the bench.? That way they dont have to persuade their fellow citizens; they only have to get four justices that are willing to place their view points of what they want the Constitution to mean over what it actually means.? Of course to those that dont like the original meaning of the Constitution and our 200 year history of government observance of religion, then persuade your fellow citizens and get it changed.

I have to admit, I find these comments to be particularly amusing.? You espouse a literal interpretation of the constitution (ie: originalist) yet completely ignore the piece of the Constitution that talks about the Seperation of Church and State powers.? Either you interpret ALL of the constitution literally, or you don't...picking and choosing which parts bolster your particular viewpoints is more the method of the politician, than the method of the Justice (moderate Justice's excluded, of course).

I find it "amusing" that in criticizing my post advocating a original textualist interpretation of the Constitution you point to separation of church and state, which can be found no where in the Constitution.? First, there are no "powers" granted in the Bill of Rights, but restrictions upon action and legislative powers of Congress.? Second, I agree that the entire Constitution needs to be interpreted literally based on the original meaning; and I agree that judges shouldnt pick and choose which parts bolster their viewpoints.? In fact, those are the very justices that I am criticizing.

Just to put it out there, I think "separation of church and state" is a good idea.  If I was writing a new constitution I would definately be more restrictive in the area of religion and government than I founders were.  Of course, that is just the point.  I am not re-writing our Constitution, nor do I believe it is the proper role of the Court to re-write our Constitution.

Yes, our country, it's forefathers,? it's history, and it's culture are deeply intertwined in religeon.

Yes, they were.? And when you are interpreting clauses that they wrote you must take that into consideration.

But that doesn't mean our laws should be.

Well, what the laws should be is not a judge for a judge, especially one that is interpreting according to the original meaning.

It's an important distintion and one our forefathers were very quicky to articulate.

And exactly where is this articulation?? It surely isnt found in the actions of those that wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Even they saw the threat to equality, freedom, and liberty if you allowed one religion to legislate the people.? They fled from persecution for precisely that reason.

Exactly, and that is why there are two religion clauses in the First Amendment; the Free Exercise Clause was inserted to guard against this problem.?


I think its a fair question as to what the original interpretation of the religion clauses were.? Anyone that interprets literally and and based on the original meaning of the Constitution looks at the text first.? The First Amendment states in pertinent part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

First thing to note is that there is no specific mention of "separation of church and state".? Textually, this clause simply prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion.? ?However, if you look at the clause in its historical context the intent and understanding behind the clause becomes more clear.? At the time of ratification six states had established religions.? Thus, like many of the clauses in the Bill of Rights, the establishment clause can most importantly be seen as a protection of the rights of states from government infringement of state powers.? It would certainly be odd for representatives at the Constitutional Convention, who themselves had advocated and enacted established religions in the states, to push for "separation of church and state".?

My view, and a viewpoint that Justice Thomas vaguely alluded to in Newdow, is that the Establishment Clause was never meant as an individual right, and was simply a federalist provision.? Thus, I find it odd and ironic that a clause that was originally intended and understood to protect the states "power" in the area of religion would be used to limit state power in the area of religion.? Of course, I dont buy into "incorporation" as the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, but that is a different matter.? However, the protections that you alluded to in your post as the intent of the framers can be found int he free exercise clause, which prevents the government from infringing on the people's right to practice their own religions.? The Free exercise clause was meant as an individual right, and is easily incorporated to the states.? Thus, while I think that the government saying "God" or placing the Ten Commandments in a state court house is not constitutional, I do believe that laws that are meant to prohibit certain religions from practicing their faith are unconstitutional.

Of course, "separation of church and state" as articulated by the current Supreme Court is absurd considering our history.? Probably the best indication of what a clause means is the practices and actions of those that wrote and enacted the clause.? Here are some of the historical government actions of religion (as articulated by Justice Scalia's recent dissent in McCreary) by those that enacted and wrote the Constitution:

"George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, ?1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words ?so help me God.? See Blomquist, The PresidentialOath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, The SupremeCourt under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, ?God save the United States and this Honorable Court.? 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926). The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, 787 (1983). The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. Id., at 788. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim ? a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.? President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people ? ?to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be,? ? Van Orden v. Perry, ante, at 7?8 (plurality opinion) (quoting President Washington?s first Thanksgiving Proclamation), thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 100?103 (1985) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting).1 The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: ?Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.?? Id., at 52, n. (a). And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection."