Justice O'Connor Is Retiring

[Honolulu_Blue]

More later...

[rkmsuf]

I'm riveted.

[albionmoonlight]

If there is one thing this country needs, it's another partisan issue to help tear us apart. This could be just the ticket.

[RendeR]

*duct tapes his mouth shut on this one*

[Peregrine]

She's been a good justice and has had a nice run, I think. Too bad people don't know the meaning of the term moderate conservative any more, or they could replace her with another one.

[vtbub]

The current Attorney General, Gonzales?

[wbatl1]

Is Renquist gonna wait till he dies? Why doesn't he retire now also?

[Peregrine]

I think that A) Rehnquist is a tough old coot and B) He places a lot of importance on the independence of the federal judiciary, and he may not be too happy with the current "Bash the judges" tone of Congress.

[KWhit]

Wow. That was unexpected.

[Swaggs]

Sweet.

The news channels have got their splash screen graphics for the next 8 months now.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by vtbub

The current Attorney General, Gonzales?

I guess that would explain some of the trial-ballooning that's been going on with him. WH probably had some advance knowledge that O'Connor was out after the term finished.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by vtbub

The current Attorney General, Gonzales?

Several (political) questions go into who it will be:

Will it be a Hispanic?
Will it be a Woman?
Will it be a "Conservative" (Justice Scalia mold) or a "Republican" (Chief Justice Rehenquist mold)?
Will it be a moderate who will probably get confirmed without much trouble?
Will it be an extremist who may not get confirmed, but whose presence will re-energize the Neocon Christian base?

It's a big moment for a President whose immediate popularity and long term legacy could be shaped in a major way by the way that this plays out. It's also a big moment for a Democratic party that needs to demonstrate that it is both still relevant and in touch with the people.

And it's a damn shame that appointing these Justices has become so political. It's not good for America in any way.

[wbatl1]

I think he'll "have" to nominate a women, for at least one of the two probable openings.

[HomerJSimpson]

If Bush follows what he has done so far, look for the most extreme conservative lightining rod, and he'll get the nomination. John Ashcroft possibly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Please don't do that HJS ... you made my heart skip a beat with excitement.

[Jon]

Appointing Justices have always been political. Presidents make picks to eliminate rivals (both past and potential), award constituencies, to enforce their political legacies, or be an ass (See Nixon and several of his picks). Supreme Court justices are politicians who wear black robes appointed by politicians. The coverage has gotten more intense.


(BTW, Bork is on CNN whining.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by vtbub

The current Attorney General, Gonzales?

Yeah, no chance in Hell. Even some Republicans in the Senate are sqeamish about his 'torture' memo.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Wow. That was unexpected.

Not really. I believe she has (or has just gotten over having) cancer.

[stevew]

He should nominate McCain.

[Airhog]

Nah, I think good ole Dean would do this country some good.

Abortion? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
Copywrite infringement? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Etc...

[sachmo71]

time to stack the courts!

[larrymcg421]

This is scary. Really, really scary.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Nuclear Option....RELOADED!

[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.

[flere-imsaho]

I wouldn't want to be a "moderate" Republican (whatever that means anymore), right now.

Here's the way it's going to go:

1. Bush nominates someone who's unacceptable to Democrats.

2. Democrats filibuster the nomination.

3. "Nuclear Option" brou-ha-ha all over again.

4. Cloture votes fail.

5. Majority Leader Frist moves to amend Senate rules to remove filibuster.

And then? Who knows.... Will enough Republicans vote to save the filibuster? I think it's way too close to call.

If the Nuclear Option succeeds (i.e. enough Senate Republicans vote to remove the filibuster), then the outcome is pretty straightforward: a conservative replaces O'Connor and a conservative replaces Rhenquist, who I'm certain will retire before the next Presidency. The other moderate/liberal Justices hang on for dear life.

Of course, with two more conservatives on the bench, I'd expect a reversal of a lot of landmark cases. Obviously Roe, but plenty of others. The affects of this outcome will reverberate for decades, easily.

Less predictable, though, is the affect this will have on American politics. I would think, though, that this would be a heavy blow to the power of Senate Democrats. I think, with the filibuster effectively gone, the Senate will become more like the House, in that the Majority (likely to be Republican for the forseeable future) will hold a death grip on most votes.

If the Nuclear Option fails (i.e., the "moderate" Senate Republicans hang tough), it gets distinctly less predictable. I think the most likely outcome in this case is that Bush nominates a candidate who's still conservative, but also has traits (a woman, a hispanic, etc...) that make it very difficult, politically, for the Moderate Republicans to vote against. Eventually, as with previous Presidents, a justice will get through.

Regardless, this is a sad day for Progressives.

[larrymcg421]

Roe will not be reversed if O'Connor and Rehnquist leave. IT still leaves a 5 person Roe majority on the court (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg). Roe (or Casey, which is the case that upheld Roe) isn't in jeopardy until Stevens leaves the court, and at this rate, I think he's gonna stay on the court until he literally drops in chambers.

[dacman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not really. I believe she has (or has just gotten over having) cancer.

Uh, nope. Renquist is the one with cancer. O'Conner had breast cancer, but that was many years ago.

[larrymcg421]

dola

Alot of people are mistaken that if Roe is overturned, suddenly abortion would be outlawed. That is not the case. It would simply remove any hindrance to states banning abortion. I imagine abortion would still be legal in many states, and people will simply have to travel further to have an abortion done.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Nuclear Option....RELOADED!

It's pronounced Nu-cu-ler you dolt.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll just work from the (somewhat naive) belief that these thumbnails are accurate
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050701/D8B2MVGO0.html

Based on these, I'm going to hope for either:
Michael McConnell (need to know more than just his abortion & church/state positions) or J. Harvie Wilkinson III ( who I think might easily move ahead of McConnell as my top choice).

Of course, my hoping for them means that there's about a 0% chance that either of them will even wind up on the short-shortlist.

[kcchief19]

From a political standpoint, conventional wisdom would suggest that anyone other than a white male will be the pick. With Ginsburg on the court, there's no press to replace O'Connor with another woman and with Thomas there will be no pressure to make an African-American. That leaves a Hispanic as the most likely target, especially since Bush and his crop of advisors have made recruiting Hispanic voters a priority. As noted above, it would also explain the trial balloons of Gonzalez's name around in the media.

That said, my gut tells me HomerJ is right. When given the choice to appoint a conservative that Democrats can live with or a divisive conservative, Bush has almost without fail gone with stirring the pot to push the agenda. Gonzalez would be a pretty each confirmation. Sure, there would be lots of fireworks and lots of stuff thrown to the wall to see if it sticks, but too many Democrats with strong support from Hispanics won't want to oppose his nomination.

I think he'd also revel in the possibility of putting the hammer to McCain's judges deal.

[Peregrine]

Keep in mind that a Rehnquist retirement is pretty likely, either shortly or in a few months. It will be interesting how the WH chooses to do this. Gonzalez now and an easy confirmation (relatively) and then a firebrand to replace Rehnquist? The other way around? Something else?

[vtbub]

I think Gonzalez this time and probably McConnel for Rehinquist. Bush will need to stand tall when he tries to make Scalia or Thomas Chief Justice.

[larrymcg421]

McConnell and Gonzalez would be a bad combo for the ultra right wingers. They want Brown or Owen. Both McConnell and Gonzalez, for the most part, are at the very least center right, and I'd bet they'd be pretty close to Justice Kennedy. That would be the best combo for the Democrats, so I doubt it will happen.

[flere-imsaho]

According to CNN (what do they know?), Frank Easterbrook, brother of TMQ's Gregg Easterbrook, is in the running.

[Peregrine]

I don't think it will be McConnell, but I feel pretty strongly Gonzalez will get a shot. It's a good move for Bush for the Hispanic voters, he's close friends with him, and they've been making a lot of noise behind the scenes about it. The other person would be more hard-right, maybe that judge out of Texas, Edith Jones I think?

[wbatl1]

I've been hearing on the radio that Gonzolez is not conservative enough, and that many right wingers will not back his nomination and it will fail. However, he may be nominated if an ultra-conservative is to be nominated later. I think the nomination for O'Connor's spot has to be a least a little bit more toward the center, because she was the moderate voice on the Court. The Democrats will fight hard against a hardline right winger to replace the "swing" vote

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

According to CNN (what do they know?), Frank Easterbrook, brother of TMQ's Gregg Easterbrook, is in the running.

If he's anything like his brother we'll be seeing the longest Supreme Court opinions ever. But at least they'd be entertaining.

[Warhammer]

I could care less whether the judges are liberal or conservative politically, I want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If there is one thing this country needs, it's another partisan issue to help tear us apart. This could be just the ticket.

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. Not what I was expecting.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

I've been hearing on the radio that Gonzolez is not conservative enough, and that many right wingers will not back his nomination and it will fail.

If that is the case, then it would be really hard for him to even make it out of committee. The Dems are looking for a moderate conservative, but those torture memos may be too much for most of them.

I think it is becoming less and less likely that the GOP will really vote down the fillibuster. The abysmal polling numbers have I think scared a bunch of them into the revelation that they might not be in the majority forever. Add to that that Frist is an emasculated leader, that the majority whip (Santorum) is facing a popular conservative Democrat in the next election so he can't be as reactionary as he has been (he even was one of the few GOPers that said that Rove did not speak for him when Rove called all liberals traitors), and that Bush could be the earliest lame duck in history, and there could be a lot of fracturing of the GOP.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

From a political standpoint, conventional wisdom would suggest that anyone other than a white male will be the pick. With Ginsburg on the court, there's no press to replace O'Connor with another woman and with Thomas there will be no pressure to make an African-American. That leaves a Hispanic as the most likely target, especially since Bush and his crop of advisors have made recruiting Hispanic voters a priority. As noted above, it would also explain the trial balloons of Gonzalez's name around in the media.

That said, my gut tells me HomerJ is right. When given the choice to appoint a conservative that Democrats can live with or a divisive conservative, Bush has almost without fail gone with stirring the pot to push the agenda. Gonzalez would be a pretty each confirmation. Sure, there would be lots of fireworks and lots of stuff thrown to the wall to see if it sticks, but too many Democrats with strong support from Hispanics won't want to oppose his nomination.

I think he'd also revel in the possibility of putting the hammer to McCain's judges deal.

I was thinking the same hting, that a Hispanic member of the court would be the next "logical" choice and that the Democrats will let Gonzalez go and won't oppose it.

It just makes sense and I don't think he accepts AG without Bush basically letting him know that it's not "if" he gets on the court, it's "when."

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

and that Bush could be the earliest lame duck in history, and there could be a lot of fracturing of the GOP.

I really think that Bush screwed up when he stuck with Cheney. When you have a VP that has higher aspirations, it helps keep the party in line, because everyone does not immediately start campaigning for the next set of primaries.

With a wide open field for the next GOP nominee, every one is jockying for position.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I could care less whether the judges are liberal or conservative politically, I want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.

How strict are you talking about? Would you support overturning Brown v. Board, Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I was thinking the same hting, that a Hispanic member of the court would be the next "logical" choice and that the Democrats will let Gonzalez go and won't oppose it.

Clarence Thomas.

[Franklinnoble]

Why do liberals freak out at the notion of a conservative justice or two on the Supreme Court?

Are the concepts of moral fortitude and personal accountability really so vile?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Why do liberals freak out at the notion of a conservative justice or two on the Supreme Court?

Are the concepts of moral fortitude and personal accountability really so vile?

For one, your original premise is flawed, as there are already numerous conservative justices on the court. Weren't at least 6 of them appointed by the GOP?

Secondly, your 'moral fortitude' sucks, and is in no way moral to me.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

For one, your original premise is flawed, as there are already numerous conservative justices on the court. Weren't at least 6 of them appointed by the GOP?

Secondly, your 'moral fortitude' sucks, and is in no way moral to me.

It's not about me, but thanks for making it personal.

[larrymcg421]

There are already three conservative justices on the court, two liberal justices, and four centrists (Kennedy and O Connor being right of center, Breyer and Souter being left of center). I won't have a problem if O' Connor and Rehnquist are replaced with likeminded justices, but I fear Bush will go to the right of both of them.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There are already three conservative justices on the court, two liberal justices, and four centrists (Kennedy and O Connor being right of center, Breyer and Souter being left of center). I won't have a problem if O' Connor and Rehnquist are replaced with likeminded justices, but I fear Bush will go to the right of both of them.

Ok... but what's the fear? What are they really going to do to make your life so miserable that you're actually afraid of it? Seriously... I want to know.