Justice O'Connor Is Retiring

[ISiddiqui]

Conservatives have gotten very little in return for holding on with Bush. The one thing they are holding out for is that Bush will give them a conservative for the SCOTUS. They'll be incredibly disappointed if they don't get one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/po...rtner=homepage

Late last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III met with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., to warn that appointing Mr. Gonzales would splinter conservative support.

And Paul M. Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said he had told administration officials that nominating Mr. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are considered suspect by religious conservatives, would fracture the president's conservative backers.

[flere-imsaho]

This is interesting:

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

Thoughts from our Conservative members?

In other news, I'm convinced the nominee will be Gonzales.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Did you know that anyone can be nominated to the Supreme Court, that they don't even have to be a judge or have any law training whatsoever? Following in the same vein as nominating Bolton to the UN (i.e., the most insane choice available), my guess is that Bush nominated James Dobson.

That's a good thing. Many of the best justices were never judges or lawyers. All a justice does is interpret the constitution. I have many lawyer friends who only took the one required course on Constitutional Law. Who would you rather have interpret the Constitution - a great trial lawyer who only had minor Constitutional training or a four term senator who in known as a Constitutional expert?

Just like civilians run the military (the President and occasionally SoD), they can be appointed to head the judiciary. Obviously, Senate confirmation is necessary, so nominating someone like the local garbageman would never work - Congress would laugh you down and the media would kill you. What's wrong with nominating a Constitutional scholar who's bereft of a law degree?

Again, some of our best justices have not been lawyers.

-Anxiety

[Glengoyne]

On the torture memo. Other than the juicy details describing what, in Gonzalez's or possibly some other government attorney's opinion, legally constituted torture, that was carried by all the papers. What is so damning about the memo? Did Gonzales actually write the "torture" opinion, or just include it as a portion of his memo? If I recall the memo wasn't recommending that we torture prisoners, it was outlining what interrogation techniques would be considered legal, as well as what interrogation techniques would or even might be considered to be crossing the line. Wasn't he just writing a memo for the President's use in determining a course of action? Did he recommend in the memo that the President expressly advocate the torture or "near" torture of prisoners because he felt the President and those acting upon his orders would be shielded from prosecution?

After the memo, wasn't the President's course of action to declare that torture of any kind was prohibited?

I just don't see how this is a bad thing...Or am I missing something.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What about gays? Promiscuity? Abortion? And saying 'your religion is no good you should switch to mine' is de facto disrespect.

No, it is not. Let's take a look at the dictionary, shall we (using dictionary.com):

Disrespect is defined as:

"A lack of respect"

Respect has three definitions. The middle does not apply here. (it refers to folloiwng guidelines and rules, like laws). That leaves us with the first and third.

"1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
3. To relate or refer to; concern."

I can think that you are wrong, and still show regard, esteem or concern. I can respect someone, while at the same time believing that if they do not accept Christ, that they will receive our just punishment for our sins. I can respect someone who thinks abortion is morally fine, while still thinking that it is murder.

I can even respect someone who oesn't think I respect others, when I actually do One of the basic tenants of Christianity is that God created all people in his image. As such, they are worthy of my respect and love.


-Anxiety


(Edited to clear up some mistyping errors)

[larrymcg421]

Honestly, the left would be stupid to make a big deal out of the torture memo. They're not gonna get a better nominee than Gonzales.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On the torture memo. Other than the juicy details describing what, in Gonzalez's or possibly some other government attorney's opinion, legally constituted torture, that was carried by all the papers. What is so damning about the memo? Did Gonzales actually write the "torture" opinion, or just include it as a portion of his memo? If I recall the memo wasn't recommending that we torture prisoners, it was outlining what interrogation techniques would be considered legal, as well as what interrogation techniques would or even might be considered to be crossing the line. Wasn't he just writing a memo for the President's use in determining a course of action? Did he recommend in the memo that the President expressly advocate the torture or "near" torture of prisoners because he felt the President and those acting upon his orders would be shielded from prosecution?

After the memo, wasn't the President's course of action to declare that torture of any kind was prohibited?

I just don't see how this is a bad thing...Or am I missing something.

Like you mentioned, his memo talked about changing the definition of torture to just something that would lead to organ failure or death. This is another passage that he wrote that is bothersome:

As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for GPW. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.... In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions....

It sounds from the language that for some reason he thinks that the GWOT is the biggest threat ever to mankind that requires all kinds of new (or old?) rules to deal with it. He also argues that the protections and civil rights afforded prinsoners by Geneva are 'obsolete' and 'quaint'. That is not an opinion that liberals want in a judge.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Honestly, the left would be stupid to make a big deal out of the torture memo. They're not gonna get a better nominee than Gonzales.

I question the logic and morality of accepting a bully taking half your lunch money instead of taking all of it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

"1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

...while at the same time believing that if they do not accept Christ, that they will receive our just punishment for our sins.

You really think that telling someone they will burn in hell if they don't repent and forsake their God for yours is showing 'deferntial regard'?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I question the logic and morality of accepting a bully taking half your lunch money instead of taking all of it.

OK, but the bully IS gonna take all of it. The Democrats can't block every Bush nominee. They won't be able to justify that. Janice Rogers Brown, definitely. Garza, sure. Gonzales is the best they're gonna get of all the potential nominees.

Bush could put up someone like McConnell, who is more conservative than Gonzales, and not very controversial. The Democrats couldn't filibuster him

Whoever gets picked will be on the court for a couple decades. I don't want to be in my 50's looking at some right wing judge Bush picked because we were too stupid to let Bush nominate the most acceptable nominee.

[MrBigglesworth]

larrymcg421, I know what you are saying. I am hoping that there is someone else out there that is similar to O'Conner that would be more palatable, a conservative, a partisan, but not completely out of the mainstream of American thought.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think that person is out there. I think Gonzales is actually pretty close to O'Connor, and may even be to the left of her. Having looked at the other potential candidates, I think he's the best choice we're gonna get.

[wbatl1]

I side with larry. Gonzalez is very much in the center. On social issues he is stated to being on the left. He will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is a Bush loyalist, but he is not a stauch conservative at all. In fact, the pressure to block Gonzales will also come strongly from within the Republican party because he is not conservative enough. The Religious Right will take a blow if Gonzales is appointed, because abortion, same sex marraige, ect will have a liberal bent on the court. Gonzales is even more left than O'Connor on these issuses. She was a true conservative moderate, he is liberal on some issuses and more conservative on others.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think it is wrong to assume that there are no moderate conservative judges out there. You have to frame it as a situation where Bush doesn't want to find that moderate conservative, not that he/she doesn't exist.

I also think it is wrong to just look at social issues when looking at potential candidates. A lot of important decisions have nothing to do with social decisions (just look at eminent domain and Grokster). I'm concerned about Gonzales' environmental and business decisions as well as civil rights decisions.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not saying there are not moderate judges out there. I'm saying, we've seen the potential choices. There is no one better among the people Bush is considering than Gonzales. McConnell is probably the next best choice. If we get Gonzales and McConnell, then the court makeup really won't change much at all.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If we get Gonzales and McConnell, then the court makeup really won't change much at all.

Which would please most liberals, with the exceptions being the Ted Kennedys who are going to challenge anything the president does. I think the best the liberals can hope for is no change in the makeup of the court. Of course Bush is not going to appoint a liberal justice on purpose, but he may appoint the more moderate conservatives. If that happens, the court remains mostly the same.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like you mentioned, his memo talked about changing the definition of torture to just something that would lead to organ failure or death. This is another passage that he wrote that is bothersome:

It sounds from the language that for some reason he thinks that the GWOT is the biggest threat ever to mankind that requires all kinds of new (or old?) rules to deal with it. He also argues that the protections and civil rights afforded prinsoners by Geneva are 'obsolete' and 'quaint'. That is not an opinion that liberals want in a judge.

I don't believe he was trying to change the definition. I believe he was citing precedence and relating details from case law. Actually IIRC, and I admittedly may be mistaken, I think the troublesome portion of the memo was actually authored by someone else, and Gonzalez included that passage as part of the memo advising the president.

[larrymcg421]

The only reason we know about his position on torture, if that is even his position, is because he's AG. I really doubt the mroe conservative justices are going to be much different in regards to that issue, and will likely be much worse. Reid has already said Gonzalez is an acceptable nominee, and I think the party should follow his lead on this one.

[albionmoonlight]

The buzz now is centering around dark horse candidate Edith (Joy) Clement from the 5th Circuit. Of course, we will know nothing until there is an announcement. In the age of the internet, one rumor is picked up by every site and suddenly becomes buzz.

[flere-imsaho]

Interesting. I can't find much on her, except notes that she hasn't ruled on any of the "hot-button" issues, but her record seems to mark her as a very strict Constitutionalist and very nitpicky about the rules.

Not what I expected (I expected, if not Gonzalez, a conservative ideologue).

Weird.

[vtbub]

We'll know at 9 ET.

[ShaqFu]

I think Bush might be going a little softer on this one, hoping that it might push judges like Ginsburg or Stevens out before 2008. Rehnquist will be out too, so it just might work.

[cartman]

I'm wondering if the current political climate is what is keeping Rehnquist, Ginsburg, et. al. on the bench. If they were Conservatives, it shouldn't be a big deal, since they are going to more than likely be replaced by someone of a similar mindset. But Rehnquist is refusing to go softly into the good night. I wonder if he is afraid of the battle over who would replace him, and would like to hold on as long as possible to see a more logical and compromising debate over the next justice. The justices realize that their position is for life, and how precious that the ideals of the balance of power are. I don't think they themselves want a "stacked" bench, either too liberal or too conservative.

With the comments that came from some members of Congress warning the judiciary over going against the decisions of Congress and the President, I can easily see this being the case.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm wondering if the current political climate is what is keeping Rehnquist, Ginsburg, et. al. on the bench. If they were Conservatives, it shouldn't be a big deal, since they are going to more than likely be replaced by someone of a similar mindset. But Rehnquist is refusing to go softly into the good night. I wonder if he is afraid of the battle over who would replace him, and would like to hold on as long as possible to see a more logical and compromising debate over the next justice. The justices realize that their position is for life, and how precious that the ideals of the balance of power are. I don't think they themselves want a "stacked" bench, either too liberal or too conservative.

With the comments that came from some members of Congress warning the judiciary over going against the decisions of Congress and the President, I can easily see this being the case.

I had the same thoughts. What is the political backgrounds on the "near-leaving" group?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm wondering if the current political climate is what is keeping Rehnquist, Ginsburg, et. al. on the bench. If they were Conservatives, it shouldn't be a big deal, since they are going to more than likely be replaced by someone of a similar mindset. But Rehnquist is refusing to go softly into the good night. I wonder if he is afraid of the battle over who would replace him, and would like to hold on as long as possible to see a more logical and compromising debate over the next justice. The justices realize that their position is for life, and how precious that the ideals of the balance of power are. I don't think they themselves want a "stacked" bench, either too liberal or too conservative.

With the comments that came from some members of Congress warning the judiciary over going against the decisions of Congress and the President, I can easily see this being the case.

Chief Justice Rehnquist has written a very good, very non-partsian history of the Supreme Court. Despite his open political leanings, I get the sense that he cares much more about the dignity of the Court as an institution than about the rightwing/leftwing political stuff going on. I think that you are spot on in recognizing that he cares more about the damage to the Court that a contentious nomination hearing may create than he does about making sure that the Justice who replaces him is an arch right winger.

[rkmsuf]

Is ESPN covering this NFL Draft style? Mel Kiper weigh in yet?

[amdaily]

I hear Clement is pro-abortion. Looks like Bush is willing to stab his base in the back once again if it means a short term victory for the administration (not to mention bumping Rove out of the news cycle)

[JPhillips]

amdaily: Pro-abortion? Does she go to high schools and encourage girls to get pregnant and have abortions? Even to me that seems a bit extreme.

(btw- Which group seems to have a litmus test here?)

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

amdaily: Pro-abortion? Does she go to high schools and encourage girls to get pregnant and have abortions? Even to me that seems a bit extreme.

(btw- Which group seems to have a litmus test here?)

Both and all, but then both and all deny it.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

amdaily: Pro-abortion? Does she go to high schools and encourage girls to get pregnant and have abortions? Even to me that seems a bit extreme.

(btw- Which group seems to have a litmus test here?)

Sorry, does it make everyone feel better if I say "pro-choice?"

[cartman]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Sorry, does it make everyone feel better if I say "pro-choice?"

the clearest method of classifying is either "for the Roe v. Wade decision" or "against the Roe v. Wade decision". Using other terms tends to eliminate any of the gray area of the debate and tends to polarize.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Sorry, does it make everyone feel better if I say "pro-choice?"

Well, nobody calls you pro-backalley coathanger abortions, do they?

[Peregrine]

I thought the whole idea of Clement, if she is the nominee, was to have someone who can't be easily labelled by either side as a partisan, hopefully making a much quicker approval process. I haven't seen anything indicating her stands on hot-button issues one way or another, and I thought that was part of the point.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I thought the whole idea of Clement, if she is the nominee, was to have someone who can't be easily labelled by either side as a partisan, hopefully making a much quicker approval process. I haven't seen anything indicating her stands on hot-button issues one way or another, and I thought that was part of the point.

Unless they are unapologetically against Roe vs. Wade, the Christian right will revolt against the GOP. I think we are in for a big change in the political landscape between now and 2008.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Unless they are unapologetically against Roe vs. Wade, the Christian right will revolt against the GOP. I think we are in for a big change in the political landscape between now and 2008.

I tend to disagree, for the simple reality that they really don't have a single viable alternative except the GOP.

Which is pretty much just as I've had to swallow the bitter pill of being on the same side of the political aisle as the anti-choice crowd, there's really no other choice for me except to deal with them.

[JW]

You need to get in on the betting before it is too late, since all of us here have such insight into politics and could make a killing.

http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

You have to click on Legal and then Supreme Court to get the latest.

[vtbub]

ABC is saying that it's NOT Clement. That from an "informed" source.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Unless they are unapologetically against Roe vs. Wade, the Christian right will revolt against the GOP. I think we are in for a big change in the political landscape between now and 2008.

Yeah, because the Christian Right will be oh-so-welcomed into the loving arms of the Democratic Party.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by vtbub

ABC is saying that it's NOT Clement. That from an "informed" source.

Yeah, it's supposedly the other Edith on the same circuit court.

[CamEdwards]

Edith Jones, aka "the female Scalia".

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Edith Jones, aka "the female Scalia".

I have to admit I like the Edith bait and switch.

Or insert your favorite have your cake and Edith too joke here.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah, because the Christian Right will be oh-so-welcomed into the loving arms of the Democratic Party.

Was thinking more along the lines of a yet to be named 3rd party garnering the type of voting percentage (16-20%) Perot recieved.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah, because the Christian Right will be oh-so-welcomed into the loving arms of the Democratic Party.

The left actually has a lot in common with what the Christian Right supposedly stands for, such as giving to the poor, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc. I know many Christians that vote Dem because of their ideals.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I tend to disagree, for the simple reality that they really don't have a single viable alternative except the GOP.

Which is pretty much just as I've had to swallow the bitter pill of being on the same side of the political aisle as the anti-choice crowd, there's really no other choice for me except to deal with them.

Yup. Hell, I would have called myself a Republican for the most part, but the religious nuts scare me, and I found the gay marriage bit to be the ultimate death of the Republican party as the party of the individual. That being said, the Democrats aren't exactly inspiring. Shit, I recall having this discussion (about the future of the GOP) way back - I thought the Rockerfeller wing would make a stand, and I'm not sure if they can.

[Crapshoot]

dola, the thread in question.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ure+republican

[Honolulu_Blue]

John Roberts.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here's more:

Judge John G. Roberts Jr.

Nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts joined the bench in June 2003 after Senate Democrats initially stalled his nomination. The appellate court in Washington is considered the most prestigious in the country, and several justices have moved from there to the U.S. Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Roberts has argued 39 cases before the high court. A Harvard Law School graduate, he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. In 1982, Gordon served as associate White House counsel under President Reagan, leaving four years later to join the Washington-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson. He became deputy solicitor general in 1989 under President George H.W. Bush before returning to Hogan & Hartson in 1993. Gordon was born in 1955 in Buffalo, New York. Like McConnell, his relative youth may prove attractive to Bush if the president wants to leave a long judicial legacy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

And yet more:

John Roberts


Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

[Buccaneer]

more protective of property interests

That's a good thing, if I'm reading this right.

[amdaily]

I have to admit I am surprised. Didn't think Bush had it in him to nominate anyone other than an O'Conner clone.