O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Sandra Day O'Conner has been pretty conservative in her tenure. Not nearly as conservative as some would like (but that sounds like Bush himself).

We will see.

TF

A brief thought -- I don't actually believe it, but it was cheering for the minute that I did... maybe O'Connor believes that the next president will be a Democrat/ liberal, and that with the inevitable delays in the confirmation process for her successor, now is about her last chance to have herself replaced with a conservative for the next 10 years or so. (Delays + at least two terms of the next president.) And while she seems to be a hale and hearty 75-y-o, she might not want to hang on 'til 85.

As I said, I don't really believe it.

I actually hold a deep respect for each one of these justices, certainly Thomas least of all but even he has spoken recently on the importance to democracy of maintaining a judiciary independent of the executive and administration. Scalia has an incredible mind though his ideological extremism makes him a seriously dangerous fellow. I wish I had more time to follow each case and these opinions more. The three judicial writers I try to stay abreast of (Greenhouse, Greenburg and Lithwick) all speak of O'Conner with awe. I think the chance of her replacement matching her gifts, given what we know Bush's concerns will be, seems close to zero.

One can only hope that it doesn't take that long to confirm a new Supreme Court justice.

Bush needs to check with the Senate before he nominates so we don't have a big fight on our hands. If he doesn't check then he needs to be intelligent enough to withdraw the name if the nomination is filibustered. This is about the good of the country, not about the good of the Republicans.

I completely agree, but the Dems will be certain to blast any nominee that Bush makes.

That's why Bush needs to be smart enough to talk to the Dems before he nominates.. How simple can this be? They can't blast if they agree before he nominates. There must be several people that both sides can agree on. It worked for Reagan and Clinton when the conversed with Congress before they nominated.

Thing is though, It's Bush's nomination to make, not the dems in the Senate. I hope there are nominees that can be agreed on.

Here is President Bush's speech this morning re Justice O'Connor's resignation. Let's hope the Senate conducts itself as the Senate instead of a pit bull fight on this one:

President Delivers Remarks on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Resignation
The Rose Garden
11:16 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.

Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.

This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.

Thank you
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050701-1.html

Gonzales, anyone?

Ann Coulter isn't by any chance a Texan, is she?

I think Ashcroft is available.

Justice O'Connor was nominated to the Court by President Reagan. She has been described as a conservative but, in fact, she has often been a swing voter on many issues.
Mr Bush will get one more whack at another nomination, I suspect. He will, I hope, not be so eager to put his stamp on conservatism on the Court that he chooses someone so far to the right as to tie up Congress for months.
I can go along with the notion (not that judges are ever, ever, chosen on the basis of regionality or ethnic background etc), that he might go with a moderate conservative of Hispanic descent to replace O'Connor. Postponing the big fight until the next Justice retires.

The thing is--replacing the two would cause highly different impacts on the court.

People weren't upset about conservative Bush replacing Renquist. You don't get much more conservative than Renquist. No risk in any choice Bush might make.

Not so with O'Connor.

A conservative in her chair may change the tenor of the court for decades to come...

It can only make the change a postitive one. At least we will have someone who will interpert the Constitution instead of making law.

I appreciate your point, Lash, that the vacancy left by Rhenquist's departure (when it comes) "belongs" to a staunch conservative. Whereas the vacancy left by O'Connor is more problematical.
My thinking though is that, with all of the issues Mr Bush is facing right now, the last thing he would want to do is pick a fight with Congress over this. Sure, there are are many conservatives salivating over the prospect of replacing O'Connor with someone more conservative. but considering how the public is starting to grumble over Iraq, and Bush's falling approval rating and the price of gas, does he really want to declare war on Congress?

Well, it is an interesting issue.

Although you make points o ponder, as I read them, I thought

1) Bush isn't running for re-election.
2) Bush is a staunch conservative.
3) Placing justices is one of the most important things a President can do. He saw his father's (opinion) mistake with Souter.
4) I bet he and Rove have waltzed around the oval office over her resignation--precisely because it means a chance to shift the court to what he feels is the way it should be-- an interpreter, rather than a re-writer.
5) Think he will go conservative.

But, I thought Reagan would have gone more conservative, too.

Anyway. It will be VERY interesting to see who's name he throws up.

Do you think the Congress will go nuclear to get Bush's appointee in?

NARAL is advertising anti-Bush stuff on a few news sites on the web.

"Don't let him take away your right to choose."

They haven't wasted any time.

neither side has. bet the ink wasn't even dry on the resignation before the war paint came out.

gonna be a long, hot summer i fear..

I was listening to Bob (the horse'sass) Novak this afternoon as he said that "we" don't want another O'Connor, we don't want a moderate, we want to move further to the right. He's probably "right." and that makes the whole issue stink even worse. What it means to me (as a stinking liberal is that "we" want activist judges that are activist in our direction reather than non-activist judges that are moderate and judge on the merits rather than on conservative or liberal agendas. What may have been a valid point in times past of "liberal activist judges" the current crop of republicans wants to remake not as non-activists but as activists of their own colour. Reminds me not just a little of the past conservatives decrying the spending of the dems or the violation of personal rights of the dems turning into the even greater spending of the republicans and the infitiely greater reduction of personal rights by the conservatives. What a strange world we live in. I say it's near time for a eulogy for america, may we rest in peace.