Justice Sandra O'Connor Retires

Remove all ads!

There could be as many as two more before George II term runs out, which means that he could change the balance on the court. He may have the opportunity to change the social issues he's been ranting about, but has done very little of any substance on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/

The battle begins...

 

Why couldn't she wait just 3 more little years?

That news makes this even more apropos. What did Jack Ohman know before the rest of us?

 

This is sad and scary.

 

I love the fact that Reid and Kennedy are telling the President what type of person he "must" nominate. Last I knew, the Republicans won the election. Republicans can nominate whoever they damn well please, and they have the votes to enforce their choice. If the Republicans would have made such "demands" when they were out of power the Press and the Democrats would have been out for blood.

It is quite apparent, and sad, that Kennedy and Reid actually seem to want this showdown, as evidenced by their drawing a line in the sand in such a public manner. If they were really interested in getting a moderate nominee, they would have been more diplomatic, not challenging the President publicly within an hour of the press release of O'Conner's retirement. Now to save face and prove that the Democrats don’t hold sway over the Republicans, they will likely nominate someone that is extremely distasteful to the Democrats. So while the politicians in DC play their games to see who will win this battle, we Americans will likely lose another small piece of our republic when the nuclear option is invoked.

Why did the name Nero just pop into my head?

 

So basically, King George has to nominate someone strongly republican and Very conservative just to piss off the Democrats or else look like a fool infront of the other half of the country? Considering what's at stake, I like it...

 

I'm hoping for someone who doesn't think abortion is a human right. Then goes gay "marriage", gay adoption, euthanasia, starving brain-damaged patients to death and so on.

 

I am seriously troubled by the fact that in America the supreme court is a political battleground. In my opinion the justice system should be free of politics and inteprent laws free from any sort of political influence. Oh well at least in here things are better in that regard.

 

Based on what's asked of the Supreme court, how can it not be a political battleground? It makes or breaks the laws of the land. They decide whether they are fair and just, or whether they need to go back to congress for more revision to make them fair and just. How can such a position not be influenced by personal politics?

 

I am hoping for, oh, approximateöly the exact opposite of what Chev is hoping for, give or take a few issues.

 

I thought the parliament and the cabinet are there to make or break laws? Courts are there to ensure that these laws do not clash with allready existing laws, political bias of judges is just plain bad in their line of work. If it's possible for normal judges in criminal courts to ignore their political position then it's possible for supreme court judges. They are there to inteprent laws (neutrally) not lobbying a political position. Or atleast that is what I think the supreme court should be all about. The American system obviously works very differently.

 

Theoretically it is supposed to work the way you say, Morgoroth. So much for theory. imo all judges should be moderates.

 

Well, it looks like it's already getting divisive, and the divisiveness is mostly among the... wait for it... Republicans!

Apparently, some conservatives fear that Bush's pal Alberto "Geneva Convention" Gonzales just isn't conservative enough:

 

So you really have to have some hardline right wing Judge to satisfy some of the Republicans? Damn, this is getting interesting. I suspect that King George is trying to guage reaction to appointing a conservative Judge before the other retirements that are expected (Earlier it was speculated that there would be two more before 2008). That way he can try make better decisions as he goes along...

 

Sheesh... I know judges are people with their own feelings for right and wrong in politics, but isn't nominating partisans in the supreme court exactly because they are partisans kinda... worrying some people? After all, the court is supposed to be objective - just how mo/i-ronic is it to nominate someone because they favor one side or another?

 

That's politics. Gotta love those Americans--or else they'll bomb the crap out of you...

But Seriously, Some judges are known for stands towards traditional morality, others are known more for ruling in favour of individual freedoms. Those rulings are considered when making appointments, and the president stacks the Supreme court with judges that rule his way...

 

I guess it'd be too much to hope for a gay, non-Anglo, non-theistic, centre/left-leaning female Chief Justice? I'm just pushing for a little more representativeness on the bench, is all...

@ Shaman,

Yeah, it's a little crazy. You'd think that maybe, just maybe, people in positions of such responsibility and power would be a little more mature about it, huh? However, I guess that in the end, what we believe is all that defines us and differentiates us; besides, you can't let the country go to the [insert derogatory plural for target group here]! If you have a political candidate naming the judiciary, it is inevitable.

@ Darkwolf,

I remember you once telling me that you believed that a judiciary which had an antagonistic relationship with the legislature was not in the interests of Americans. However, a Supreme Court who is in the back pocket of the incumbent administration - regardless of their politics - cannot be a better option for anyone who does not share the same narrow set of values.

I see the same intent, although with a slightly different focus. By raising the issue immediately, it may become important on a wider scale and is inevitably going to be a politicised appointment. Either way, it's a partial win for the Democrats - they either get a progressive judge and arrest the conservative shift on the bench, or a weapon to use against increasing influence of politico-religious conservatism.

I concur: this does not bode well, and I hope for everyone's sake that this does not happen. After all, how can justice be said to be done if the people making the decisions do not differ or offer competing interpretations? That is supposedly the heart of the adversarial ethic, yet it does not translate across to the make-up of the highest levels of the judiciary? I sincerely hope that Bush and Co. are wiser than that. Of course, if they didn't raise the issue, you'd still get someone distasteful to the Democrats...

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the Democrats are pulling an unashamed political stunt, but one which I believe will only work in their favour. Making this issue a high priority in public debate is possibly one of the most important things they could do; after all, they are bound to serve the interests of their constituents, not service their own ideologies.

Sorry, there I go again about politicians and integrity... got a little carried away! Seriously, though, I do not view this agitation by the Democrats as a bad thing. I believe that the more people realise the potentially disastrous effects of political hegemony and the responsibility of government to avoid succumbing to doctrine, the better. I just wish the opposition in Australia had that much spine and determination.

 

I don't believe that I stated that I want a judiciary that is in an antagonistic relationship with the legislature. In fact, I would prefer a Supreme Court that didn't pay a bit of attention to the legislature, other than to understand the intent of the legislature in laws that it passes. Other than that I prefer an aloof Supreme Court that uses the Constitution exclusively in all its decisions (no foreign law, no case law). IMO, if a law or lower court decision doesn't contradict the US Constitution, the Supreme Court should take no action (either refusing to hear the case, or refusing to overturn), no matter how unfair the law, finding, or judgment seems to be. IMO, it is the lower court's responsibility to look at current law, precedent and case law.

When you boil the two positions on what type of person should be appointed down, IMO are left with 2 basic beliefs, one being that the Constitution is as living document that changes with the whims of society, and the other being that the Constitution is a foundation for our nation that is not subject to revision or change except by the mechanism the founding father provided, amending it. Liberals generally want a more flexible interpretation, and conservatives generally want a more strict interpretation, of course all bets are off if the Constitution stands in the way of something that one side wants or opposes.

 

That's true, you didn't - I apologise for the clumsily-worded sentence if it gave that impression. I was expressing a desire for a more independent judiciary and bemoaning the fact that there hardly a shred of subtlety about political influence these days; I would prefer a court which was at least balanced, if not inherently sceptical of any ideologically-motivated change. I must confess that I am no authority on the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and rather assumed it to be broadly similar to the High Court in Australia (which rules on constitutional and jurisdictional issues, points of law and some appeals from state Supreme Courts). Still, the same sort of bench-stacking occurs here and probably has since Federation.

Agreed, though, about the integrity of the document if someone in power wants something - especially if they are in office long enough to sufficiently stack the bench their way. Give someone that much power and few will resist the temptation to abuse it somewhat; we're about to see it in Australia with workers' rights and university funding reforms, and I hope that the US doesn't follow suit.

 

While Bush may not have three Supreme Court apointees in his presidency, O'Connor's retirement almost guarantees that he will have a least two. Last I heard Chief Justice Rehnquist's health was failing in his battle with cancer. The thought that he would still be alive in 2008 - never mind still serving on the bench - is a longshot.

I am of two minds on the issue. First of all, even if Rehnquist is replaced with a strongly conservative Justice, it won't make much of an impact on the court because Rehnquist is already very conservative. With O'Connor it is somewhat different, as she is often times the swing vote. IMO, I do not see how anyone could call her a "disappointment" as she is one of the most moderate judges on the bench. In a great many court cases where the decision was 5-4, it was O'Connor that cast the deciding vote. It is here where another conservative justice would do the most harm, in that it would give the conservatives are majority in the Supreme Court.

 

Don't both sides want that ultimately? The Conservatives to gain the upper hand, and the Liberals to sound a rallying cry to lead the people against the Republicans in 2008...