Hurmoth Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 WASHINGTON ? Supreme Court Justrice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her retirement notice to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.Bush is scheduled to speak from the White House Rose Garden at 11:15 a.m. EDT to announce the retirement. Sources said he will not be naming a potential successor for O'Connor. "Dear President Bush, 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 priviledge 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 wrote. O'Connor, 75, has served on the Supreme Court for 24 years. Her depature creates the first vacancy on the court in the past 11 years and represents the first chance Bush has had to nominate a justice. The Supreme Court ended its latest session on Monday and speculation this week has focused on the possible resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But so far, Rehnquist has stayed in place. Two years ago, O'Connor wrote the book "The Majesty of the Law; Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice," which was partly a personal account of her experiences as the first woman named to the high court and partly a historical look at the development of U.S. law. Having women and minorities on the court helps the public accept Supreme Court rulings, O'Connor said in a 2003 Associated Press interview. "It's not for me to say," whether racial, ethnic or gender diversity on the court should be a goal, she said. "But I think it's been desirable from the standpoint of public perceptions of fairness to see a court that includes women and minorities." O'Connor was a politician and a state trial judge in Arizona before President Reagan chose her for the court in 1981. She drew on her experience as a judge for a section of the book dealing with juries. Jurors ought to be free to take notes during a trial, and even pose written questions, O'Connor said. Only some states and courts allow such departures from custom. O'Connor tried to instruct her juries about the law at the beginning of the case rather than at the end, she said. "It seems to me when I listen to complicated things it helps me to know ahead of time what I'm supposed to decide," O'Connor said. "I can hear the arguments to better effect, and I think jurors can hear the facts more effectively if they know ahead of time what specifically they have to decide." Her book contains some strong criticism of the way juries are now chosen, including the reliance on outside jury consultants that some believe "can virtually guarantee a verdict by stacking the jury with people who fit the ideal demographic profile." Even so, O'Connor said in the interview, she does not blame defense lawyers for using whatever tools are available to them. "Yet people who can't afford it are not going to have that benefit, and you get a little nervous about how that might play out in terms of fairness," O'Connor said. One of the court's two swing votes, O'Connor often sides with more conservative justices as she did in the Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000. Although some lawyers and Republicans have said that ruling did not really decide the election, O'Connor does not mince words in a brief reference to the case in her book. Bush v. Gore, she said, "held unconstitutional Florida's presidential election recount procedures, and thereby determined the outcome of the election." O'Connor said her tenure on the high court probably has not hastened the day when America will elect a woman president. But that day is inevitable, she said. The Supreme Court has no "overarching objective" when it comes to the death penalty, despite a large number of recent cases wrestling with the way capital punishment is carried out, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says. O'Connor was in the majority when the high court outlawed capital punishment for the mentally retarded, but in the minority when justices ruled that juries, not judges, must make the crucial decisions that can lead to a death sentence. "We aren't here trying to develop something in the sense of where the country should go with this issue. We're a reactive institution," O'Connor said in an Associated Press interview Monday. "We proceed case by case as they come to us, and not with any overarching objective that the court itself" has developed. News Source: FOXNews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Hawk Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 will leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or when 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." 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. Source: CNN.comI just hope we don't get a ultra-insert term here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk26 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Too bad. I still remember her being appointed when I was kid (still am, but hey, age doesn't matter). She was one of my favorite judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosslover Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 damn shame too. she was really the swing vote on alot of cases. If somebody else resigned, like Renquist or something, then when Bush appointed somebody else you wouldn't notice a shift since he would basically be appointing somebody who had the same views. However with O'Connor, it could be a more pronounced shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 My favorite justice is Justice Scalia. I would like to see Rehnquist retire and Scalia take his place as Chief Justice :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaLiVa Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 First thing I thought when I read the title: Terminator Judgement Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I am shocked this thread hasn'te exploded yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Discussion and debate over possible successors. It is like a war on Capitol Hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 What's there to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Hawk Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Democrats Warn Bush on Choosing Successor to O'Connor @ NY Times.com WASHINGTON, July 1 - Senators from both parties heaped praise on retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor today, and Democrats warned President Bush not to try to replace her with someone whose views they consider extreme. Republicans, meanwhile, signaled that they were girding for a fight."Justice O'Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the court," said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the minority leader. "It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness." Mr. Reid said the president should respect the Senate's "advice and consent" role spelled out in the Constitution and nominate "a highly qualified candidate whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream and who will make all Americans proud." Justice O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the court, has been regarded as a centrist and "swing vote," as was Potter Stewart, the man she succeeded in 1981, after President Ronald Reagan nominated her. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was just as warm as Senator Reid in his praise of Justice O'Connor - but blunter in threatening to resist a nominee he would find unpalatable. Mr. Kennedy called Justice O'Connor "a mainstream conservative" and "a wise judge who served the nation and the Constitution well." Mr. Bush's choice for a replacement, Senator Kennedy went on, "affects each and every American and has the potential to impact every facet of constitutional law and the freedoms this country was founded upon." "If the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people," Mr. Kennedy said, "then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so." Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate, so President Bush's nominee will have an excellent chance at confirmation if his or her name is put to a "yes or no" vote by the full chamber. But Democrats have the power to block a nominee through a filibuster, a debate tactic that requires 60 votes to end, and they have used that power to stymie several of the president's choices for federal appellate courts. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on the nominee, acknowledged the political realities of filling a Supreme Court seat, while emphasizing that "I don't want to prejudge anything." Calling Justice O'Connor "an historic figure," Mr. Specter alluded to the likelihood of heated debate at the coming confirmation hearings. "This is a very polarized country when it comes to the issues which will come to the Supreme Court of the United States," he said at a Capitol news conference. "And I would expect people to want their choice. And everybody can't have their own way. That's why we have a president and that's why we have a Senate." Among the most polarizing issues in American politics and law are abortion and the place of religion in American life. Conservatives have been intent for years on undoing the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to choose an abortion. And the court term that just ended included rulings on how and where the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Justice O'Connor had served "with dignity and fairness." The senator said he hoped Mr. Bush's next nominee would be treated "with fairness and respect, including an up-or-down vote in the Senate." Mr. Grassley's comments served as a reminder that Republicans have their own ideas about what puts a jurist outside the mainstream. "I'll be looking forward to hearing from a nominee who understands that the role of the courts is to interpret the law, not create the law," he said. Senator Daniel Akaka, a Democrat from Hawaii who appeared with Senator Kennedy, said Justice O'Connor was someone who, typically for a Westerner, "brought into the court a love of the land and an appreciation for individual rights." "It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental values of freedom, equality and fairness," Mr. Akaka said. Another Democrat, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, said President Bush should use "the Reagan standard" in choosing a nominee and pick someone like Justice O'Connor. And Senator John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he and many others in Arizona rank Justice O'Connor "as one of our greatest citizens." Of course, Mr. McCain said, President Bush's nominee will be a conservative. "He campaigned for re-election and made no bones about the fact that it would be a conservative nominee," Mr. McCain said. "Elections have consequences." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 1, 2005 Author Share Posted July 1, 2005 Already posted ;) https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=339053 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Looking at the way it was last handled over 10 years ago over new appointments, Clinton consulted with the Senate minority party judiciary leadership at the time (the Republicans) and Orrin Hatch ( UT) approved Ginsburg and Breyer. Will Bush behave the same way? I think it would be out of character, the character that we've seen thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 I am shocked this thread hasn'te exploded yet. 586149545[/snapback] Guess there's not much to be said....... besides 'good riddance'. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 2, 2005 Author Share Posted July 2, 2005 Exactly. Ultra-left would be really bad. Ultra-right would be really REALLY bad considering all the shifting going around. 586150961[/snapback] I suspect that we won't get an left anything... more than likely we'll get an Ultra-Ultra Right-winger :yes: (Y)(Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Source: CNN.comI just hope we don't get a ultra-insert term here. 586148189[/snapback] Exactly. Ultra-left would be really bad. Ultra-right would be really REALLY bad considering all the shifting going around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Guess there's not much to be said....... besides 'good riddance'. :) 586150588[/snapback] i dodnt understand this hatred for O'Conner. She was more of a moderate than anything else. How can bash on someone like that besides being an ultra-rightwinger?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Guess there's not much to be said....... besides 'good riddance'.?:)) 586150588[/snapback] Good riddance? Are you serious? Your not a very good conservative then. O'Conner voted AGAINST the decision that allows local governments to take YOUR land. She voted FOR that 2000 decision...Bush vs Gore that put a nut case in the White House. Now I'm not saying I liked ALL her decisons but I'll say this now, that part of what you just posted is part of the far right fringenational echo> who own talk radio and Fox expressing about her. Why? To garner support for a Thomas clone nomination...(A Scalia rubber stamp who can't tie his shoe without Scalia showing him how..) That's ALL that's about. Some people are just sooooo ungrateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Good riddance? Are you serious? Your not a very good conservative then. O'Conner voted AGAINST the decision that allows local governments to take YOUR land. She voted FOR that 2000 decision...Bush vs Gore that put a nut case in the White House. Now I'm not saying I liked ALL her decisons but I'll say this now, that part of what you just posted is part of the far right fringe national echo who own talk radio and Fox expressing about her. Why? To garner support for a Thomas clone nomination...(A Scalia rubber stamp who can't tie his shoe without Scalia showing him how..) That's ALL that's about. Some people are just sooooo ungrateful. 586154943[/snapback] not to derail the topic, but MANY democrats feel that recent decision was a blunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 not to derail the topic, but MANY democrats feel that recent decision was a blunder. 586155221[/snapback] Quite true. I'd guess that the majority of Americas feel that way. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise but was making a point. My bad for not using a few more of her votes to show a pattern. It bothers me that the far right wing fringe weld so much mind control in this great country. IMHO, she was a great Justice and will be sorely missed. We NEED a moderate majority in our courts and in congress in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Agreed 100%. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Rather suprising. I thought the US would see Rhenquist go before O'Connor. As for a successor, I have my preferences, but suffice it to say, I'd rather they not be another moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2005 Rather suprising. I thought the US would see Rhenquist go before O'Connor. at his age and with his condition, he may be next. o'connor wasn't a staunch conservative, nor was she some loony liberal. while i don't agree with all her decisions, she was pretty level-headed. As for a successor, I have my preferences, but suffice it to say, I'd rather they not be another moderate. 586158351[/snapback] an ultra-something is bound to upset half the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 an ultra-something is bound to upset half the population. 586165829[/snapback] I doubt it. I personally think that most Americans don't even know who O'Connor is, let alone who will take her place :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2005 I doubt it. I personally think that most Americans don't even know who O'Connor is, let alone who will take her place :p 586165867[/snapback] touche! but people playing the party-lines (on both sides) who know the situation will surely have something to say about the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2005 I give up on this. If Bush nominates an ultra conservative then I lose all respect for him. If he doesn't then I gain a whole bunch back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts