• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring from the Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Well, that pretty much gives republicans control of the court now. O'Connor was always a wild card on various issues, now Bush can replace her, and later ranquest with more conservatives.
 
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Member
Bush should nominate Lindsey Graham... the Democrat leader said they'd probably go along and he seems to be a reliable conservative on social issues...
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
Alcibiades said:
Bush should nominate Lindsey Graham... the Democrat leader said they'd probably go along and he seems to be a reliable conservative on social issues...
Click to expand...


Call me a right-wing radical, but I would not support that nomination.
 
G

ge-man

Member
border said:
I think Bush will probably go with moderates (or at least I hope so).
Click to expand...

You would hope that would be the case, but I'd be surprised if he didn't try to push forward another yahoo.

Get ready for fireworks folks--things are going to get even hotter on Capital Hill.
 
B

border

Member
Well I'm assuming that any wackos will just be filibustered to death so they'll go with nominees that everybody can agree on.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
It is fucking war time.

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.
Click to expand...

Oh christ, anyone but Alberto Gonzales, James Harvie Wilkinson III or Miguel Estrada!
 
E

Ecrofirt

Member
I think we need to make Supreme Court robots. Robots without emotion. Robots which have a sole purpose of interpriting the law.
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
Amir0x said:
It is fucking war time.



Oh christ, anyone but Alberto Gonzales, James Harvie Wilkinson III or Miguel Estrada!
Click to expand...

You realize Gonzales is not liked by the right as the pick, right? He would likely be another Sandra Day...
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
terminator2.jpg


Sahn-drah Day O'Connuh?
 
P

Prospero

Member
From SCOTUSBlog:

It’s reasonable to expect that confirmation hearings will focus on questions before the Court next Term. Here are the leading cases for OT2005:

No. 04-623, Oregon v. Ashcroft – assisted suicide
No. 04-1084, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal – religious use of drugs
No. 04-1152, Rumsfeld v. FAIR – military recruiting on campus and gay rights
No. 04-1144, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood – abortion parental consent
No. 04-1244, Scheidler v. NOW – abortion protests
Click to expand...

Uh-oh.
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
Prospero said:
From SCOTUSBlog:



Uh-oh.
Click to expand...

The rumours going around conservative circles point towards Emilio Garza.

In the meantime, I've begun my SCOTUS BATTLE 2005 donations to my favorite wacko right wing organizations!



Why pro-abortion people should be happy with AG (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050627.shtml):
If opposition to abortion is Bush's pre-eminent social conservative position, Gonzales is a most improbable choice. He could not bring himself to support parental notification on the Texas Supreme Court. While he professes to be anti-abortion, he maintains Roe v. Wade is inviolable -- a judicial version of John Kerry's formulation.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
Abu Gonzalez is the best of a bad bunch. The one that really scares me is Luttig-total right winger, smart as hell, evil to the core. I think Luttig is the guy they want to replace Rehnquist with, though, and I know Bush would love to put his loyal laptop Gonzalez on the courts.

ORINn Hatch would be an interesting pick, but I really can't see Bush nominating someone with such a short tenure ahead of them (Hatch is old). ORIN really wants the job though ( :| ).
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
Fragamemnon said:
Abu Gonzalez is the best of a bad bunch. The one that really scares me is Luttig-total right winger, smart as hell, evil to the core. I think Luttig is the guy they want to replace Rehnquist with, though, and I know Bush would love to put his loyal laptop Gonzalez on the courts.

ORINn Hatch would be an interesting pick, but I really can't see Bush nominating someone with such a short tenure ahead of them (Hatch is old). ORIN really wants the job though ( :| ).
Click to expand...

The general feeling is the President is using 60 as a cutoff age. IIRC, Hatch is 68. The age limit keeps my dream candidate, Ted Olsen, out of the running as well...

For those who don't know of Garza, he sees abortion as something that should be handled at the state level. Def. more of a real conservative than AG.

I
heart.gif
federalists!
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
PotatoeMasher said:
You realize Gonzales is not liked by the right as the pick, right? He would likely be another Sandra Day...
Click to expand...

I'm commenting on the article that suggests these are potentials. I stated that I do not fuckin' want those three anywhere near the lips of Bush as a potential candidate.
 
B

brooklyngooner

Member
PotatoeMasher said:
Why pro-abortion people should be happy with AG (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050627.shtml):
Click to expand...

Not trying to start anything nor derail the thread, but it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's an important distinction. Many people who are pro-choice are repulsed by the thought of abortion and would never have one or advocate one for themselves or others, they however believe they and government have no place dictating what a woman can do with her body. Pro-abortion makes it sound as though people are walking the streets chanting, "What do we want? More abortions! When do we want them? Right now!" which is not the case.
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
Alcibiades said:
isn't he pro-life....

honestly I could care less about any issue but I'd definitely want someone that would be againt the Roe V. Wade decision...

"Graham scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record"
http://www.issues2000.org/House/Lindsey_Graham_Abortion.htm

what beef would conservatives have with Graham?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if others do, but I've always seen him as a John McCain style wishy washy legislator... it's nothing so much to do with a specific voting record, just the way I've always seen him...
 
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Member
brooklyngooner said:
Not trying to start anything nor derail the thread, but it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's an important distinction. Many people who are pro-choice are repulsed by the thought of abortion and would never have one or advocate one for themselves or others, they however believe they and government have no place dictating what a woman can do with her body. Pro-abortion makes it sound as though people are walking the streets chanting, "What do we want? More abortions! When do we want them? Right now!" which is not the case.
Click to expand...
Dennis Miller put it best...

Abortion. Now listen, I'm pro-choice on abortion, but as Roe v. Wade enters its 121st trimester, I think we've gotten all abortion crazy in this country, and I'm just finding the word "abortion" so grim. Everybody, abortion, not abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion. I think we need a change in terminology. And I've been doing some thinking, once again, I have an idea, I'm not saying it's a great one. I want to see what you think. I say don't call it an abortion anymore. I think we should call it an Ovarian Mulligan. It just sounds happier, doesn't it ? "Where you going, baby ?" "I'm takin a Mully." "Alright, we'll settle up at the turn."
Click to expand...

:lol
 
P

PotatoeMasher

Member
brooklyngooner said:
Not trying to start anything nor derail the thread, but it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's an important distinction. Many people who are pro-choice are repulsed by the thought of abortion and would never have one or advocate one for themselves or others, they however believe they and government have no place dictating what a woman can do with her body. Pro-abortion makes it sound as though people are walking the streets chanting, "What do we want? More abortions! When do we want them? Right now!" which is not the case.
Click to expand...

I guess that would make me anti-choice, then? I don't consider myself anti-choice... I just see the responsible choice as the one that leads to the pregnancy in the first place...

Let me call it what I want to, and I'll let you. It works that way.
 
P

Pudding Tame

Member
Great, one of the saner Justices has to quit.

Her husband has Alzheimers though, so I blame him. (Showing why I should never be a SCJ)

I wish her the best with the ordeal that she'll have to go through.
 
R

Rei_Toei

Fclvat sbe Pnanqn, ru?
LOL, news here (Netherlands) automatically assumed Bush would surely install an ultra-conservative. +1 objective state-sponsored news.
 
M

Mercury Fred

Banned
Incognito said:
I think most women value their privacy and right to choose.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. I just assumed since Roe v. Wade deals with women's bodies and their right to make choices over them that only a woman would assume to have the authority to call for its repeal.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Mercury Fred said:
I think you're right. I just assumed since Roe v. Wade deals with women's bodies and their right to make choices over them that only a woman would assume to have the authority to call for its repeal.
Click to expand...

Yes, so they could resort to backyard alleys and hangers.
 
G

gigapower

Member
I've got a Blue Pants said:
No, but then again, I don't have to be
Click to expand...
So you'd rather have an unwanted child possibly living off of welfare all their life, possibly turning to a life of crime over a woman making a personal choice that no one but her has a right to make.

You probably also don't think gays should be allowed to be married because it would destroy the moral fiber of America and bring down the US. Instead of letting two people show their love of each other and live happily together, you'd rather see them unhappy and oppressed.
 
R

ronito

Member
I think we might be getting derailed off the topic here. There's much more to this than just gay marriage and abortion.

Fact is unless Bush comes out and nomiates a moderate (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...that's was a good one...oh I kill myself sometimes) there's no way that the Dems are going not to filibuster this. If they do there's no way Frist and Co. will not go with the nuclear option to install their activist judges.

Either way, get your popcorn ready, this will get very, very ugly...and that's just O'connor, when Rhenquist goes the whole thing will blow up...badly....
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
ronito said:
Either way, get your popcorn ready, this will get very, very ugly...and that's just O'connor, when Rhenquist goes the whole thing will blow up...badly....
Click to expand...
Why would it be worse with Rhenquist? Considering he's a pretty consistent conservative, letting Bush replace him wouldn't really change the court. O'Connor's retirement is a much bigger deal since she's been a swing vote on many issues. This replacement will change the court more than Rhenquist's departure (during this administration at least).

This'll be ugly, no doubt about that.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
Luttig or Roberts is getting Rehnquist's job. It's a natural fit for the court.

O'Connor's replacement is the real fight because she often "swung" the 5-4 decisions towards the moderate side of the court.
 
F

Father_Brain

Banned
God, this is going to be fucking scary.

On O'Connor, we should also remember some of the more... unpleasant aspects of her almost quarter-century on the Court:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221306
[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to Newsweek. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.
Click to expand...
 
R

ronito

Member
Dan said:
Why would it be worse with Rhenquist? Considering he's a pretty consistent conservative, letting Bush replace him wouldn't really change the court. O'Connor's retirement is a much bigger deal since she's been a swing vote on many issues. This replacement will change the court more than Rhenquist's departure (during this administration at least).

This'll be ugly, no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

True dat. I see your point about O'connor being a big deal. Let's just cross our fingers that Stevens can hold out...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
5K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Cops fired for ignoring robbery to catch Snorlax in Pokemon Go denied court review
19
2K
StreetsofBeige replied
Ancient Roman figures brought to life via AI
Science 2 3
100
11K
Dirk Benedict replied
Breaking: Justice Kennedy announces retirement from SCOTUS
2 3 4 5
208
15K
Kadayi replied
Top Bottom