Sandra Day O'Connor to retire

[BigV]

Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. She said she wishes to spend time with her husband whose health is failing. They will move back to their home in Arizona.

Will this seat be considered the "woman's" seat as Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Clarence Thomas?

So who will President Bush send to Congress as the trigger for the coming nuclear war? My guess is Alberto Gonzales.

[Happy Monkey]

I smell trouble a'brewin.

[BigV]

The President's brief address largely praised Justice O'Connor, but did include an ominous phrase, that he "expects a fair vote". I find it ominous, in contrast to my normal optimism, that he said that because a vote and his history of disregard for non-controversial candidates don't overlap in the context of the recent nuclear stand down in the Senate.

I think this will be ugly.

[BigV]

Excerpts:

The praise section:

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.

Now he invokes the Constitution. Because now it is convenient to do so and it provides good cover. His opponents will be "against the Constitution". Staking out the boundaries of the battle.

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.

Emphasis mine. Not unreasonable in any way, but certainly an incomplete list. Whomever is nominated will certainly (hopefully) carry all these qualities, but also their own individual personalities as well. Of course. The question is whether the nominee will be more centrist or more conservative, and how intensely so.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, 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.

Emphases again mine. Will he submit a nominee that is sufficiently acceptable to the Democrats in the Senate that a vote will be had? Or will the vote only come after Frist changes the rule by triggering "the nuclear option".

The technique of "changing the rules" or "moving the goalposts" to be able to say a standard was met is frequently used by this administration. When the established rules are inconvenient, like the ability of either party to exert some control over the debate by delay (filibuster), the rules will be changed to favor the Republicans (in this case). Y'know, to me that's just not fair. In a simple human way. We agreed on something, and then the agreement changes. That's what chafes me the most.

Gonna be an exciting news summer. This may not be the only SC battle...

[wolf]

I honestly think that Rehnquist will die rather than retire ... My belief is that SDO'C's announced retirement makes it unlikely that anyone will follow before she is replaced.

[BigV]

Interesting opinion, wolf. Do you think it is because he's just too _____ to quit? (attached to his job, hardheaded, unattracted to anything else, worried in some way that his replacement will make an undesireable difference in the court)?

One thing I observed as this story unfolds, is that some of these people are old. No disrespect, but 75 is old. And Rehnquist is 85! Yikes. This court has been intact, without changes, for the longest period in our country's history.

The winds of change are blowin'.

[wolf]

All part of the political maneuvering. I post on several boards, but I forget if I pontificated here ... there will be a lot more furor over replacing the Chief Justice, so having her go first will allow that dust to settle before another new justice is nominated and then the games begin over CJ.

[wolf]

This is a lot more interesting that Survivor, don't you think?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by wolf

This is a lot more interesting that Survivor, don't you think?

Watching paint dry is more interesting that watching Survivor.

Naturally, the answer to your question is HELL YES.

[vsp]

Replacing O'Connor isn't the war to end all wars. The fighting will be loud and messy, but it's not a total tip-over of the Court if someone more conservative takes her spot.

Replacing Rehnquist won't be the war to end all wars; it'll be replacing an old conservative with a younger conservobot.

If Stevens (who's 80+ and one of the liberals) dies, becomes seriously ill or retires? THAT'S when everybody goes to the mattresses.

[BigV]

When Justice O'Connor was nominated, she was considered conservative (at least a conservative woman, since Reagan was determined to keep his promise to nominate a woman if given the chance). Over the last 24 years, her position relative to the court has evolved to make her the centrist position, as she has cast the deciding votes in many many cases.

Replacing her with someone more likely to be aligned with the conservative / regressive agenda will represent a major shift. And an irresistable opportunity for this administration to move the court further to the right. And I imagine the youth of the nominee will be a factor, with younger being better, in anticipation of making a longer lasting mark.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Make that longer lasting stain.

[richlevy]

From here

In his weekly radio address, Bush said his eventual nominee will be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values."

[Happy Monkey]

Or, if he can't find someone like that, Karl Rove.