posted on July 1, 2005 07:45:15 AM
(CBS/AP) Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement Friday after 24 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. O'Connor, 75, considered a crucial swing vote on the divided court, was the first female justice in Supreme Court history.
Her departure could lead to a bruising confirmation fight for the person President Bush nominates to replace her.
O'Connor's surprise announcement came amid widespread speculation that ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist would step down. The 80-year-old Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and was absent from the bench during much of the court's just-completed session.
O'Connor, a graduate of Stanford Law School, is a former Arizona state senator and was the state's first female Senate majority leader in 1972. She served as a judge in the Arizona Court of Appeals until President Reagan nominated her for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981 to fulfill a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the court.
Like Rehnquist, she often interprets the Constitution very narrowly. They frequently vote together, leading them to be nicknamed the "Arizona Twins."
O'Connor battled breast cancer in 1988 but appears to have recovered.
Those tracking the process say the administration has already researched the resumes of prospective nominees to replace her. Justice Department lawyers are carefully looking into the personal backgrounds of prospective justices. Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed despite allegations of sexual harassment. One of President Reagan's nominees, Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew from consideration after it was revealed that he had smoked marijuana.
"It will be fascinating to me if there is a vacancy to see what the president wants to do," CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen said. "He can really pick a fight Or does he do something that's going to generate more consolidation, more cooperation with the Senate, by going to a moderate conservative pick?"
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
I glanced up at the TV this morning and had to laugh at the "headline" at the bottom of the screen on Fox....
O'Connor retirement sparks battle of talking heads
I thought Good God, that's the first thing I have ever seen on Fox that I completely agree with. Then I realised that what it actually said was...
O'Connor retirement sparks talk of battle ahead
OK - that's true too, but I like the first read better.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 1, 2005 09:16 AM ]
posted on July 1, 2005 09:49:03 AM
Libra - there are two reasons
1) You learn nothing by listening only to those that have the same view as you. By listening to opposing views, you may not be swayed but at least you gain an understanding of the mindset that inspires them. It's kind of a lesser version of "know your enemy".
2) It is occasionally damn funny. No one cracks me up like Sean Hannity can. He does not mean too and it would probably make him crazy but he is just so.... he's like an ultra conservative charachture. I cannot watch him without laughing as he dawns "serious face" and then spews the most laughably biased comments. He is also the king of unnamed sources. Based on the looks that he gets from those he addresses with the information garnered from "his sources" I really think they are the little friends in his head.
BTW - I think they are going to calling Greta home from Arruba soon. There has been a noticable difference in the past few weeks in her reporting. When she first got there she was much more biased and inciting, in recent weeks she has become downright factual and fair. I'm not sure that's allowed at Fox.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 1, 2005 09:50 AM ]
posted on July 1, 2005 10:37:34 AM
Don't be to sure about Greta, she has always been downright factual and fair, that is why they hired her. Unlike some news men.
_________________
posted on July 1, 2005 12:22:26 PM
I also watch Fox and the GOP web site to see where the parrots for the GOP get all their sayings and words from.
About replacing Justice O'Conner, it would be nice if Bush ( THE UNITER ) nominated a Judge that will represent the MAJORITY of AMERICANS, NOT JUST THE WACKO RIGHT WING MINORITY.
If he does than he will get his New Judge without much of a hassle. If not the Re-pugs will have to try and break the filibuster (AGAIN) against the wishes of the Majority of Americans and law makers of his own party.
posted on July 1, 2005 01:02:30 PM
So you are saying bigpeepa nominate a liberal judge and everything will be fine?
Doesn't work that way. The President picks who he has decided that will be the best for the Supreme Court and the cases they review and decide to do. It isn't what the majority of the people want it is the President that nominates them. You have to admit although Pres. Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as a conservative in the end crossed over the line but that was her choice and her view of the case they were voting on.
The last Presidential election was very important and it was known that whoever won would probably have 2 justices to appoint. Now if this was important why didn't the democrats see that or were they blind to that. That is what you have to ask yourself or better yet the Democratic Party. The citizens of the US knew this was going to happen and they elected Bush. I think if you had been reading threads before the election this was touched on a lot.
posted on July 1, 2005 01:36:16 PM
Unlike Congress or the presidency, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a "political" institution. It must remain neutral in order to settle legal issues, interpret laws, and decide the meaning of the Constitution. Supreme Court justices should not allow their personal or political views to color their decisions. Neither should they permit themselves to be influenced by presidents, other politicians, or popular public opinion. To help assure the justices' independence, the Constitution provides that they serve life terms unless they resign, retire, or are removed for misbehavior.
Has this idea always been just an ideal?
RonUnless the definitions have changed the "majority" of Americans agreed with President Bush Or we wouldn't have him in the White House."
Read my lips,bamboozled,hoodwinked, deceived, misled, duped
posted on July 1, 2005 03:40:55 PMI hope he puts the MOST conservative judge he can find in O'Connor seat.
So then, I guess that means you don't have a problem with activist judges. Hmm....
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y saliσ trasquilado...
posted on July 1, 2005 04:30:36 PM
lol profe - What I [me, myself and I] consider 'activist' judges are those who keep 'inventing the Constitution'...making it fit their agenda - like those on the USSC who recently decided that cities will have the right to take property away from citizens. The founding fathers NEVER would have supported any such nonsense....but the USSC did.
I prefer conservative judges who apply what our Constitution actually says....usually referred to as Federalists and not some twisted interruption of the liberals who sit on the benches.
TWO.....maybe TWO or more USSC conserative justices sitting on the USSC....I'm in HEAVEN....
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 1, 2005 04:54:36 PM
oh hellennnnn......has this wonderful news sent you to your chaise lounge with an ice-pack on your head, repeating over and over, "this can't be happening, this just CAN'T be happening?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 1, 2005 07:39:49 PM
::I hope he puts the MOST conservative judge he can find in O'Connor seat.::
I almost hope that he will try something this stupid as well. He does that, the dems filibuster, the republicans use the "Nuclear Option" and it becomes oh so more likely that they lose majority seats in the mid term elections.
For that very reason, I think you will see him act like a responsible politician, bring the dem leaders in and find someone that everyone can agree upon as a compromise in order to allow an ultra conservative thru when requist retires.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 1, 2005 07:41:35 PM
washington, Bush won by a narrow margin. Now a few months later that margin has disappeared. Bush is no longer the President of the Majority of Americans. If Bush were to run today you and I both know he would lose.
All the people that now realize they made a mistake in their vote for Bush can start changing that mistake in 2006.
If Bush gets a Judge that overturns the Woman's right of choice you republicans will be finished for years and years. Americans believe in a woman's right of choice by 2 to 1. I call that a majority. We will all wait to see if Bush tries to "UNITE" this country or further divide it at his own parties expense.
washington you are wrong the majority of the American people do not want a more Conservative Supreme Court. Not now with the way this White House is handling Americas business.
posted on July 1, 2005 07:52:59 PM
Not what I'd like to see happen at all....ultra-conservative for Rehnquist keeps the court just as it is.
What's needed is to replace, O'Connor - a moderate swing voter - with ANOTHER ultra-conservative.
bring the dem leaders in and find someone that everyone can agree upon as a compromise in order to allow an ultra conservative thru when requist retires.
LOL....now THAT'S funny. First of all like he needs to name someone the dems agree with.....that's RICH lol - like they certainly would do IF they were nominating a judge LOL LOL - yea right.
And doing what you suggest is NO guarantee they wouldn't /won't fight just as hard as they're going to on O'Conners replacement.
This is not going to go down well with the democrats.....who might just be seen as obstructing ANOTHER area of our Congressional business.
funny....real funny though.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 1, 2005 08:13:42 PMI prefer conservative judges who apply what our Constitution actually says....usually referred to as Federalists and not some twisted interruption of the liberals who sit on the benches.
So in other words, a conservative judge by definition cannot be an activist judge. That's only for Liberals. Correct?
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y saliσ trasquilado...
posted on July 2, 2005 08:50:02 AM
No, profe...not correct.
But it is my position that conservative judges side more with the 'intent' of our Constitution than do the liberal, activist judges. Liberal, activist judges change the 'intent' and go with what is currently popular at the time.
It has become more and more clear, since this President was first elected, that the liberals can't win elections so they make their 'changes' from the benches. And that's what the right is working to stop.
And that's about to be changed on the USSC, at least. YEAH!!!!
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 10:54:54 AMIf Bush gets a Judge that overturns the Woman's right of choice you republicans will be finished for years and years. Americans believe in a woman's right of choice by 2 to 1 I call that a majority
So what at least the abortion issue would be solved for at least 20 - 30 years. No killing of babies.
So you are saying the liberal women want to have abortions more than Conservatives? But liberals are against the war?
This is one reason why the Conservatives wanted the Presidency because of the Supreme Court. If the Democrats would have had a candidate that had a platform or knew what he was doing they maybe they would have won.
That is something you have to understand bigpeepa. Evidently it wasn't important enough or they didn't do their homework.
posted on July 2, 2005 01:30:46 PM
::So what at least the abortion issue would be solved for at least 20 - 30 years. No killing of babies.::
You can hope and dream of that Libra but it is not that cut and dry. Even if tomorrow the Supreme court turns over Roe v Wade, it just becomes a states right issue. that means that it would be up to each individual states to make it illegal and since this it's a minority vote issue, it ain't going to happen. It might happen in South Carolina where some nutsy fundamentalist is try to get others to move so that they can overturn the local governments but for the rest of the nation, that one is not going to fly. But keep dreaming, everyone is entitled to one
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 2, 2005 01:45:17 PMthat means that it would be up to each individual states to make it illegal and since this it's a minority vote issue, it ain't going to happen.
I agree it would become a states rights issue.
THEN we would see some states totally reversing it...others leaving it as it currently is....and others setting LIMITS on the gestional age of the baby that would not be allowed to be aborted. THAT is what's needed.....limits....some restrictions....not this 'on demand' garbage as it is now.
jmho, of course.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 01:49:14 PM
What I also wanted to add was it is NOT a small minority who want partial birth abortions ended. Rather it's a HUGE majority that want to see it stopped.
posted on July 2, 2005 01:53:29 PM
Linda - It may be a huge majority of your friends but it is not a huge majority of Americans. On a national level, Anti-Abortion sentiments are in the minority. Luckily there are a large population of this country that feel that even if abortion is not right for them, it not their right to dictate to others what is right for them.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 2, 2005 01:58:28 PM
Sorry...fenix...just one more area we disagree upon. I'm NOT speaking about my friends but rather to the FACT that our Congress twice, during the clinton administration, actually PASSED the partial birth abortion legislation....it was clinton who vetoed it.
And they're going to try to get it passed again. There is much support for it....and they'll try again to get it passed before this administration's term is up I'd bet.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 02:08:00 PM
Linda - We are talking about Roe v Wade which is abortion rights which is a very different topic than partial birth abortions.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 2, 2005 02:08 PM ]
posted on July 2, 2005 02:14:34 PM
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 8-12, 2005.
.
"In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
.
Yes - 30
No - 63
Unsure - 7
Now - Since I am sure you will argue that this is some leftist "you liberals" conducted polls.... here is one from Fox News whose viewers I am sure you are aware are overwhelmingly conservative.....
"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"
Pro-life - 42
Pro-choice - 47
Both - 8
Mix - 3
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 2, 2005 02:16 PM ]
