Sandra Day OConnor retires

“Ewker,
what you are saying is that the Supreme Court should support your views and no one else's.”

Looks like that's what you are saying. I'm saying if moderate means rewriting the laws instead of enforcing them as they are written, I see nothing honorable about "moderate". If moderate means using the European laws and practices to decide what our laws mean, I see nothing honorable about being a moderate.
last edited: 7/12/05 1:56:48 PM”

“Geesh. The funniest (haha sad, not haha funny) is that you guys think you make a difference in this. LOL!”

“Yeah, I know it. I just hope that I'm happier than Ewker when all is said and done with this new justice thing.”

“LOL, I'm pretty sure I'll be happier than Ewker at the outcome.”

“NoProb, the only way you would be happy is if Bush nominated a far right wing judge, anything less would be a dissapointment in your eyes.”

“Stove, you probably think I was against O'Connor as a judge. She was a good one IMO.

SS, no comment on Gonzales being a SC judge. Makes me think you wouldn't like him being one.”

“Yes, if "far right wing" means enforcing the constitution and laws as they are written, then I want far right wing. Please explain what is wrong with judges judging instead of legislating?”

“nothing wrong with that but not everyone reads the law the same way.”

“Far right-wing means FASCIST, therefore NoProb is a full freak fanatic fascist.”

“Shlt MarkO, compared to you Howard Dean is a frickin' right wing extremist wacko. LOL!

you are like, left of Jesus.
last edited: 7/12/05 2:45:01 PM”

“I wonder if some of them ever read the laws they are suppose to be ruling on. Based of some of the rulings and the writings that they put out, I don't see how they can have read the law.

Quiz for you: Where do you find "separation of church and state" and "right to privacy"?”

“Nigal......always the putz.

pfffffttttt!!!!”

“Marky, you sure like that word don't you. You seem to think everybody except you and fiddleboy is a fascist.”

““Nigal......always the putz."

At leaste ya kept the come back Jewish on a Jesus crack. Pop quiz smartboy; what IS putz?”

“If the jackboot fits you NoProb.............”

“Hispanic Judges on Dems' List for Bush By DEB RIECHMANN and DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.

Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting a commitment by those involved not to discuss names.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, refused to confirm that they offered those two names, but said "those are two of the three I would think would have good support from both parties."

Bush was noncommittal about his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has resigned effective with the confirmation of her successor. "I'm going to be deliberate in the process," he told reporters at the White House.

Bush "didn't give us any names" Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after the session had broken up.

Besides Reid and Leahy, Bush met with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card also attended.

The administration has consulted widely with Democrats in the 10 days since O'Connor announced her plans to resign, and the early morning session at the White House was part of that effort.

The meeting came at a time when the president is under pressure from conservatives who want a court that will reverse precedent on abortion rights, affirmative action, homosexual rights and other issues. Some conservatives have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush and frequently mentioned as a potential candidate, questioning whether he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.

For their part, Democrats are urging Bush to seek a "consensus candidate," one who would win confirmation without a bitter struggle. But they have relatively little leverage in purely numerical terms. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and can confirm any of Bush's picks unless Democrats mount a filibuster. The White House would need 60 votes to overcome that.

Democrats have done extensive research on dozens of potential replacements for O'Connor and the names of Sotomayor and Prado have emerged, along with others, as among those viewed as acceptable. Leahy suggested the names in the meeting, although Reid's presence signaled his approval.

According to an official government Web site, Sotomayor was named a U.S. District Court judge in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, the president's father, and confirmed in August 1992. President Clinton nominated her for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, and she was confirmed in 1998.

President Reagan nominated Prado to a seat on the U.S. District Court in 1984. The current President Bush picked him for his current post in 2003, and he was confirmed on a vote of 97-0.

Frist praised Bush for reaching out to Democrats, saying that what the administration is doing "is pretty unprecedented if you look back in history. He is reaching out aggressively. He has contacted — he or his staff have contacted over 60 United States senators, each of the members of the Judiciary Committee, over half or two-thirds of the Democrats."

Democrats said that was fine — as far as it went.

"This certainly is a good first or second step," Reid said at a news conference outside the White House. "This process needs to move forward. And I was impressed with the fact the president said it would; there will be more meetings, consultations."

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

Laura Bush, too, got in some gentle lobbying during the day.

"I would really like him to name another woman," the first lady said on NBC's "Today" show, in an interview from Cape Town, South Africa, where she is traveling. "I admire and respect Sandra Day O'Connor, but I know that my husband will pick somebody who has a lot of integrity and strength."

Bush seemed a bit surprised that Mrs. Bush told reporters what she thought. "I can't wait to hear to her advice — in person — when she gets back," he said in the Oval Office after a meeting with the leader of Singapore.

McClellan would not say whether the president was leaning toward selecting a woman. "The president is going to consider a diverse group of individuals for the vacancy that is available," his spokesman said.

Asked about Democrats' objections to specific candidates said to be under consideration, McClellan said, "No individual should have veto power over a president's selection."

Bush and Senate Republicans have said they hope to have O'Connor's replacement confirmed and sworn in before the court convenes for its new term in October.



anyone notice that the two on the Dems list were first appointed by Rep. Presidents to the higher courts.”

“Marky, You are just way too clever, I just can't joust with you. I feel so bad.
last edited: 7/12/05 2:54:16 PM”

“"Pop quiz smartboy; what IS putz?"

Hmmmmm......fool......moron......idiot........schmuck”

“What's wrong with nominating judges that both parties can live with?”

“P E N I S. It's the foreskin after it's cut off.”

“No Taxation Without Representation!”

““What's wrong with nominating judges that both parties can live with?”
MarkO

Because the democrats are wrong.”

“"Because the democrats are wrong."

This from Mister Right(Wing).”

“yep, on both accounts.”

“““What's wrong with nominating judges that both parties can live with?”
MarkO

How about because it's the president's job to appoint, not the other party. Had Kerry won the election HE would be choosing and ya'll would be happy and satisfied with that being his choice and his choice alone. Wouldn't ya? Yeah of course ya would.”

“Suppose Kerry would nominate moderates, or would he have nominated people that agreed with him (that's liberals)?”

“Easy questions.

The concept, "separation of church and state," was first given expression by the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams in about 1640.

In 1785, Thomas Jefferson, while he was president, wrote to the Danbury Baptists and used the expression in his letter. However Jefferson is given the nod for having coined the phrase.

The right to Privacy also called "The penumbra doctrine" comes from Justice William O. Douglas's opinion for the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Douglas traced the right of privacy from the First Amendment and the associated rights to think and believe private thoughts, the Third Amendment which outlaws quartering soldiers in private homes and relates to a concern for privacy, the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects one from being forced to incriminate oneself.
last edited: 7/12/05 3:21:16 PM”

“HPM, nice answers. Think you can find references to them in the constitution (or the currently ratified amendments to the constitution). The Thomas Jefferson bit is good but more of an opinion than a law. And the "right to privacy" answer is, again, an opinion that may or may not have been the intent of the law.”

“What's wrong with consensus and compromise?

That is how best to govern all or most of the people.

This winner take all crap don't cut it.

Clinton, for instance, asked Orrin Hatch who Hatch would find acceptable for the Supreme Court.
Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Ginsberg and Breyer would be fine with him.”

“And the "right to privacy" answer is, again, an opinion that may or may not have been the intent of the law.”
NoProb
3:29:19 PM
7/12/05


NoProb, you made my point when I said not everyone reads the law the same way. It is a person's opinion or interpretation of the law.
That will vary per judge. If all the Judges thought the same then we wouldn't have the Supreme Court would we. Even they don't totally agree on each matter.”

“There is a lot of evidence to support that the notion of separation of church and state (SC&S) was in the minds of the founding fathers but that specific phrase certainly isn't in the constitution. At the time though the intent was mostly to protect church from state and to keep state from becoming church. I don't take issue with that but striking the balance is the problem.

Roger Williams's plea for Religious Freedom is worth a read.

The right to privacy makes sense to me although not specifically stipulated in the constitution. Once again it is the application of the precedence that gets dicey.

The whole constructionist/deconstructionist (living document) arguement has been around since the constitution was being written. There are numerous quotes and documents regarding the Constitution where the writers discussed the need for the Constitution to be able to grow and flex so that is can always be relevent to future generations.

It isn't a new fight and it certainly isn't a modern Democrat thing. As a matter of fact Hamilton and the Federalists (who were more akin to modern Republicans) were the first to treat the constitution as a living document with the attempt to create a Bank of America.

I do have issue with using foriegn law to decided US Constitutionality. The Constitution of the USA is THE FINAL document to determine the laws of our nation. Sure it might be helpful to see how others do things but there laws aren't necessarily ours and if we wanted their laws then it is up to the Legislature to write them.
last edited: 7/12/05 3:50:34 PM”

“HPM, looks like we pretty much agree. To me it is a living document at least in the sense that if it can be changed. But it needs to be done via the amendment process that is in the constitution, not by proclaimation from the bench.

Ewker, I agree that different people have different opinions. I'm talking about opinions that override the laws of the land.”

“NoProb, Each Judge uses his opinion or interpertation of the law to make a ruling. They use the constitution as their guideline. If the law was that clear cut then you wouldn't be having split decisions.”

“I don’t like judges legislating from the bench and I don’t like having our rights rolled back (to quote Teddy “hic” Kennedy). I don’t think Bush will appoint either.

And to quote John Stewart:

“Conservatives don’t like Gonzales because he’s not pro life enough and liberals don’t like him for…well, everything else.””

“My picks for the 2 Supreme Court vacancies...

Alberto Gonzales for Chief Justice. That's the no brainer.

And, drum roll please...

Elizabeth Dole for O'Connor's seat.

If not Dole, then Kay Bailey Hutchinson or another of the few female conservative Senators.

Personally, I think that both would sail through the Senate with ease. Both would be conservative, but somewhat moderate. That makes them perfect for Bush and the Democrats.”

“O'Connor Urged to Reconsider Retirement By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Four female senators called Thursday for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on the court and try for chief justice if the ailing William Rehnquist steps down.

In a letter to O'Connor, Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Barbara Boxer of California asked the nation's first female justice to consider staying on the high court if Chief Justice Rehnquist relinquishes the top spot.

Rehnquist was discharged Thursday after two nights in the hospital for treatment of a fever. O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1, but has made it conditional on a replacement being confirmed.

"We urge you to reconsider your resignation and return to the Supreme Court to serve as chief justice, should there be a vacancy," the senators said in the Thursday letter.

The four senators also said they will "strongly recommend" to President Bush that O'Connor become the next chief justice if Rehnquist steps down.

"We believe such a history-making nomination by the president would demonstrate leadership that unites Americans around the shared values of liberty, the rule of law and the preservation of our constitutional freedoms," they said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont first publicly stoked speculation about a possible O'Connor candidacy for chief justice on Sunday.

"I think it would be quite a capping to her career if she served for a time, maybe a year or so," Specter said.

Given the praise O'Connor has received since her retirement announcement, she would be a lock to be confirmed as chief justice, Leahy said. "I think it would be a very doable thing," he said Sunday.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Thursday that he planned to ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee several pointed questions, including whether he thinks Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, was correctly decided and whether it should be revisited.

Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, argued in a speech to the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society that Bush's team will probably conduct an ideological examination of the prospective nominees in private before sending a candidate to the Senate.

"If a nominee's ideology, judicial philosophy, constitutional views are central considerations in a president's decision to nominate, as they inevitably are, and if such questioning is going on in private, I dare say that the American people have an absolute right to have those questions answered publicly," Schumer said.

Conservatives are urging Bush to fill the court's first vacancy in 11 years with a solid opponent of abortion. That would shift the court to the right on abortion and other social issues. Liberals are resigned to getting a conservative justice from Bush, but hope the president picks a moderate who might not be as rigid on abortion rights.

Several recent polls have found approximately six in 10 Americans agree with, or oppose overturning, the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, in a Senate speech, said Democrats are just setting up an attempt to make "political hay out of the candidate's personal views."

"Just because some members may try to ask these questions, it doesn't mean the president's nominee should answer them. In accordance with long tradition, they should not answer them," Cornyn said.

Meanwhile, the seven Republicans and seven Democrats who brokered a deal to avoid a conflict over Bush's lower court nominees met for the first time in two months on Thursday. The 14 senators signed a pact in May not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, they agreed to oppose attempts by GOP leaders to change filibuster procedures.

They also called for Bush to consult with the Senate.

The group "applauded the outreach effort that is going on and the consultation that is occurring and is suggesting that that kind of consultation needs to continue," said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.


this was on yahoo.com for those interested”

“Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729396,00.html”

“Violin, I met Justice Oconner almost a year ago. She is retiring because her health is seriously effecting her judgement. The Parkinsons has become pronounced adn its overall effect on her has brought questions of her ability to properly judge. The sad thing is that her judiciary has frequently violated the Constitutional Separation of Powers. Too often the left has relied on the judiciary to legislate from the bench. I view her comments like I do Former Executive Failure Carter. Both are suffering the effect of age but their handlers are using them to make a point.”

“violin - you'd rather the judiciary make law? The problem with the courts is they want to make law. That is not their job. More important than their job (their freedom to do as they please) is the correct distribution of constitutional powers.”

“DANG XL - you and I are channeling each other today. (between this and the Daschle thread)
last edited: 3/13/06 1:08:07 PM”

“I thought that too....but it is like an easy target, GOTTA SHOOT”

“You two make a cute couple.”

“SO do you and your right hand....”

“I hate to find myself defending Violink, but a man with hand is a man indeed. A man without hand is just a lying SOB.

Gimme five :-)”

“Of course, in this context, "Gimme five :-)” sounds more than a little.... Brokeback.


Of course, XL comparing his relationship with Sarge to Violin's relationship with his right hand provides even stranger food for thought.
last edited: 3/13/06 5:43:21 PM”