Justice O'Connor Retires
 

Just saw it on TV. Any thoughts?

Link to the Story

I'm moving to Canada before the right-wing-nut-job GWB appoints takes away all my civil rights and forces me to live the rest of my life barefoot and pregnant.

Alberto Gonzalez have been mentioned as Bush's candidate to replace O'Connor.

I wasn't aware that her husband has Alzheimer's Disease. My heart goes out to her, to have stayed with the Supreme Court for as long as she did, under those circumstances.

lol, I was just thinking that.

Anyone else think Roe v Wade will be one of the first things to go??

eta: I was unaware her husband has Alzhimer's, and since I know how painful of a diease it can be to other members of the family, I respect her decision to leave the bench. I was completely shocked to say the least.

oh boy. This is going to be a fun time :rolleyes: But it is no surprise SOMEONE stepped down, so many of them are in poor health. I did think it might be Rehnquist, but he's so damn stubborn he probably won't step down until he dies.

Very interesting for me since this is the first SC vacancy that I have much memory of. I remember the whole Clarence Thomas debacle, but only in the context of Anita Hill. I didn't really understand the whole SC thing back then. Now, well, very different story.

I think GW would have a better chance of getting a conservative woman appointed. If it has to be a conservative, I hope it's a woman.

You can cut the melodrama with a knife in here.

Seriously - chilling can be good.



kddani - on CBS, they said that there were currently very few women being fast-tracked. I was disappointed to hear that.

I also didn't know about her husband having Alzheimer's, until they included that in her reasons why she chose now to step down. I would imagine that she & Rehnquist have discussed who gets to go first, and she won the coin toss.

Oh shit.

I heard that, too, and was also disappointed. CBS mentioned there was one woman on the "short list" but CNN.com lists 2 possible- Edith H Jones and Janice Brown. But from everything I've heard/read it sounds like Emilio Garza.

Ditto.

My thoughts exactly.

Yep. I was at work, and those were still the first words out of my mouth. I'm throwing a going away party for Roe v. Wade, but I'm not going to Canada. You keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and George W. Bush as close as you can possibly get without losing IQ points!

But I do admire her for staying as long as she did. My prayers are with her.

I've said this in other threads, so why not say it here?

My first instinct is to run to Canada and get the hell out b/c what is happening to my country.

It is all happening because 550 people (approximately) are counting on our fear and a lot liberties have been compromised for "our own good". The 3 branch system was set up to avoid situations like this, our founders didn't think this would happen and I think they are all turning over in their graves.

Think about it 550 people vs. 400 million people, that is some siht.

This country was founded on the principles of protest and not complacency.

But since I love my country and don't want things to get worse, I am going to stand up and fight and write every representative that I can and say...."I'm not taking it up the ass anymore" and you Mr/s Representative work for me, now do what I want and get this country back from the dark side!

This is just the next step into hell


(ok I've been ranting way too much lately, I kinda like it when I lurked).

I'm glad she's retiring during Bush's term (although the circumstances sadden me). And I freely admit that if it were Scalia or Thomas who were retiring I'd be no happier than the liberals are right now.

Sometimes I think who ends up on top in the government is a gigantic crapshoot. It's about being at the right place at the right time in history.

Oh no! A Republican appointed justice is retiring!

The key is she was a moderate conservative Republican appointed justice. She was the swing vote that kept things balanced, particularly with regards to Roe v. Wade.

She was not the swing vote with regard to Roe v. Wade. Three justices collectively, including her, were the swing vote on that issue.

The speculation of the leading candidate to next be appointed by Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is dreaded by the religious right because they believe that he won't be predisposed to overturning Roe.

All of this OHMYGODTHESKYISFALLING!!1! is baseless and ridiculous.

Can you stop explaining things to people. We were going to have people leave to Canada. Oh wait they were just going to yap about leaving to Canada.

-Rudey
--At the very least they could hang out in Cancun for a while but they didn't think about that.

I don't see them hanging out in Cancun. They strike more as the day cruise type who hang out on the Lido Deck.

Well, I haven't exactly cried that the sky is falling. Us liberal type folks could live with O'Connor most of the time. She was moderate. We feel concerned that her replacement may be much more conservative. I'm sure the right wing would be just as nervous if Clinton were replacing someone like one Rehnquist. I personally hope that Roe v. Wade doesn't get overturned, but it's not the only issue out there.

I agree. She's moderate, not a crazy right-wing extremist. Roe v. Wade is incredibly important to me, as it should be to all women, and while it is not the only issue out there, it's important. And I don't think the sky is falling. I'm upset, because I like having personal liberties, but eh, what can you do.

Move to Canada like you want and it'll all be OK.

-Rudey

It's easy to lack concern for the status of abortion rights in our country when you're not getting any. For anyone else, this may end up being a big deal at some point in the future, although whether that ends up being the case depends on several factors.

Clinton was from the moderate wing of the Dems.

-Rudey

Actually, I wonder if all of the knashing of Molars is really going to make a damn bit of difference?

Liberal or Conservative, when any Duly Elected Moron gets in, He/She will have their own agenda. It has always been my contention that the sheep soon place the frock of wolves clothing on when they are sworn in.:)


Scalia and Thomas were strictly Interperating, the Constitutional Law.:)


I think I would Make a Great Justice!:cool:

If my sig wasn't too big already, I'd make this mine - truer words have never been spoken!

Roe v Wade is not my biggest concern, but it is a concern.

But this is my biggest concern (taken from another thread and a direct quote)

If "not getting any" is an indicator of the support for abortion rights, then how is it that women who have given birth (and clearly do get some) are more likely to be opposed to abortion rights than other women or men?

If that is your biggest concern, did you vote against Clinton in 1992 when the Democrats had controlled the House every year since 1955, and the Senate for the same period except for two years?

Umm, there are close to 300 million people in the US, not 25 million.

It seems to me that you are turning this into a democrat vs republican debate and I will not get pulled into that.

The plain simple truth is that this current government makeup is doing some pretty damn close things that could be construde as fascist and I will not stand for it.

We were founded on checks and balances system, hence the 3 branch system. And the check and balances are *almost* non-exsistant.

What she said!

Well, We can only hope the new S C justice will be a Moderate as in Moderating between the Liberals and Conservatives!


Political gaming is getting out of hand. When are they "REALLY" going to start thinking about "THE PEOPLE" "Us"?

As supported by what data?

and
Um, I think valkyrie was referring to some men not being concerned with abortion rights because they are not getting "any" - as in abortions not sex.

Sad record for Democrats
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/po...rtner=homepage

Article on how since Reagan appointed her, so much has changed.

"Because of Justice O'Connor's conservative reputation on certain issues, some women's groups were wary of her at the outset, fearful that she would oppose legal protections for abortion and interpret federal laws addressing sex discrimination narrowly. But her rulings in those areas have generally found approval with women's groups."

"In 1981, according to the American Bar Association, 36 percent of law school students were women. Last year, it was 48 percent."

"A look at the courts shows the breadth of change across the quarter of a century bookmarked by Justice O'Connor's nomination and her retirement. In 1981, Mr. Reagan's first year in office, there were almost 700 active federal judges, and 48 were women, some of them semiretired. Today, according to the Federal Judicial Center, there are 201 women and 622 men among active federal judges. As late as the beginning of the administration of Jimmy Carter in 1977, there were fewer than 10 women on the federal bench, according to the administrative office of the federal courts."

-Rudey

I'm glad you've successfully argued against Russ's main point, which was that the Chicken Little Treatment gets old fast, and you have no basis for it.

-RC
--didn't even point out petty spelling/usage/factual errors! yay!

I think he was just asking a reasonable question - if things are bothering you now, then they must have also been bothering you during the time that Russ referenced.

It will be interesting to watch the process unfold, though. I remember bits and pieces of the Thomas hearings, but not enough to have a full memory of the details.

Rudey...
How is that a sad record for democrats?
There are two women on the USSC. One was appointed by a Republican. The other was appointed by a Democrat. Are you saying that if Reagan hadn't appointed a woman to the court, women would not have made progress in their representation on the federal bench? Or even have gone to law school at all?
I'm willing to give Reagan his credit for putting the first woman on the court but I really think it's a stretch to say that doing so precipitated the increase in women on the federal bench or in law schools.
You might want to factor in some other events which had a much larger impact... Title VII... the women's movement... Title IX... some major anti-discrimination suits which opened up many prestigious jobs in the law which had previously been closed to women... just to name a few.