Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sandra Day O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

  1. Jul 1, 2005 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    WASHINGTON (AP, July 1) -
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 1, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The possibility that two or even three justices could retire during GWB's term was our greatest fear. This is a disaster for the U.S.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2005 #3
    Bush is a Lame Duck right now. He'll have problems pushing an ideologue through the Senate IMO. His appointee will be conservative I'm sure (Warren was 'supposed' to be conservative) but anything too extreme will be tough. It's sad that the main swing voter in court is the one retiring though.
     
  5. Jul 1, 2005 #4
    Juustice O'Connor should be commended for her willingness to assess each case before her in terms of "present times and standards," including a occassion or two where she re-assessed and opposed her own opinions written years earlier. In this way, her opinions were typically not pre-disposed to any bias before she was pesented with applicable facts, points, and arguments. I would hope that her replacement is of a similar philosophy of practice. Appointing an agenda prejudiced justice for this type of decision-making post, would do poorly in interpreting the complex needs of the American public and U.S. Constitution today, tomorrow, and in the years to come.

    The public must understand that the Supreme Court exists to interpret the U.S. Constitution and best extrapololate what they believe our founding fathers would have invoked upon present day matters if they were alive today. Such ultimate interpretations must take into account the present knowledge of our times.
     
  6. Jul 1, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You know, I tend to forget that his presidency is pretty much over. You make a good point. Whewwwww. :yuck:

    Thanks for reminding me of that.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2005 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bush will not be out of office until January 20, 2009 - inauguration day of the next president. That's 3 years and 7 months - plenty of time to wreak havoc. Can Rehnquist or Stevens survive that time?

    What if he were to put Judge Pryor on the Court, the one who placed a religions symbol (the 10 commandments) in his court?
     
  8. Jul 1, 2005 #7
    Harry Reid has suggested conservative judges to Bush, that will meet with Democratic support.

    A good thing! I doubt Bush will give the suggestions much consideration, but pretty much a win:win for Reid.

    (I'll dig up the names.)
     
  9. Jul 1, 2005 #8
    "Reid later offered four names of people he said would be good for the court: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They ``are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members,'' Reid said. "
     
  10. Jul 1, 2005 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I could go with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

    I have been impressed by former Senator John Danforth, except for the fact that he said that GW Bush was a good president. :rolleyes:

    Another person I admire is former Senator Warren Rudman.

    I just want to see a fair and impartial jurist, who does not have a religious agenda.
     
  11. Jul 1, 2005 #10
    How often have senators been appointed to the Supreme Court? It would seem that Reid should suggest some Judges that he thinks would make good Supreme Court judges, not Senators...
     
  12. Jul 1, 2005 #11
    The article went on to discuss that. You could google in quotes, some part of the quote above - if you want to find the exact number. Otherwise, I think it was about 14 (justices that had been senators).

    Many senators have experience with the law, (law degrees, a practice, etc) although I don't know how extensively those 14 (?) were involved with sitting as justices.
     
  13. Jul 1, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, lets say that I am extremely hopefully that GWBs re-election was his last hurrah. His popularity, and the popularity of his programs is plummeting. The Sunday political shows paint a picture of RW moderates putting distance between themselves and GWBs policies. And he has already lost several key issue; like personal accounts for SS. That is a dead issue, as is..uh hum...Mars. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Jul 1, 2005 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's hope so.

    I bet GW will leave office and become a board member of several companies which are making big bucks in Iraq and the War on Terror. Nice little racket there. Use your office to start a war, for personal reasons, and then make a huge profit from it. And the Vets - well they have the privilege of serving their country.

    Cheney will probably go back to Halliburton, which I believe were notified sometime in 2000 to come up with a plan (hence they were the only company with a plan and got an exclusive contract), and he will get a multi-million dollar bonus.

    I know - it reeks of unsubstantiated conspiracy - but just watch in 4 years time.
     
  15. Jul 1, 2005 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's the sad part. You have to justify your statement in spite of the obvious likelihood. Oh, did you hear that they renamed the oil tanker Condoleeza Rice to avoid any appearance of impropriety or misplaced loyalties.
     
  16. Jul 2, 2005 #15
    Alberto Gonzalez???

    he got flack for his nomination to AG. ("The Geneva convention is "quaint." "torture may sometimes be reasonable.")

    I see he is getting flack from the conservative base - presumably on his stand on abortion.

    Opinions here?
     
  17. Jul 2, 2005 #16

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    As far as I can tell from discussions I've seen, Sen. Lindsay Graham is perhaps the most favored choice by Dems, with second place actually going to Gonzales. There's a perception that Gonzales would be fairly independent once he was no longer directly working for the President (although it's also been suggested that he would become Scalia's patsy). He's also apparently not anti-pro-choice (I don't know anything concrete enough to put this less equivocally o:), however I understand one-issue, anti-abortion types are quite decidedly against him). Lots of Dem discussion here, and in other threads on the same site.

    One intriguing suggestion was 4th Circuit judge Allyson Duncan (Info here and here.) She's a Bush appointee who was confirmed without a hitch (93-0).

    At a GOP site, one person handicapped some possible choices like this:
    17-1 Samuel A. Alito Jr.
    29-1 Janice R. Brown
    24-1 Edith Brown Clement
    40-1 Miguel Estrada
    06-1 Emilio Garza
    06-1 Alberto R. Gonzales
    08-1 Edith Jones
    07-1 J. Michael Luttig
    12-1 Michael McConnell
    17-1 Theodore Olson
    22-1 William Pryor
    28-1 John G. Roberts Jr.
    36-1 Larry Thompson
    11-1 James Harvie Wilkinson III
    Discussion then moved to Sen. John Cornyn, and later returned to Emilio Garza (5th Circ.) and Edith Brown Clement (5th Circ.).

    The AP on some of the possible nominees.

    The NYT on possible nominees and flavors of conservative jurists.
     
  18. Jul 2, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No way, I hope...
     
  19. Jul 2, 2005 #18

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, we can find out right now

    *travels into the future*

    .
    .
    .

    *arrives back*

    Sorry guys, meteor hits earth next week. :frown:
     
  20. Jul 2, 2005 #19
    If I remember correctly, states can choose to either have judges in their local courts elected on a non-partisan basis, or selection by merit processes or so forth. I wonder why Supreme Court nominees are suspect to political bickering over the current party in power, especially with such an important position at stake.

    But Mel Martinez? He isn't even a judge, and he is deep in the political power play. I remember before the recent elections around 25% (at least) of the commercials on TV were his rather nasty political attack ads against his opponent. He definitely rode Bush's coattails to the top.

    Biases that are formed politically should not be introduced into the courtroom... it tends to interfere with the concept of fair justice.
     
  21. Jul 3, 2005 #20
    Because it is an important political issue.

    Rev Prez
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Sandra Day O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court
  1. Supreme Court Facts (Replies: 2)

Loading...