Sandra Day O'connor

[Meenah]

How do you feel about Jusice O'Connor retiring? I hope her health is OK, but I must admit I wish she would stay until our President is gone. I cannot believe that he will get to appoint possibly two Justices. I feel as if we are going to revert to the 1950s. No secret how I feel or vote!!
Luanne

lets sob on each others shoulders then.

According to what I heard, her husband is ill and she is retireing to take care of him.

If Bush intends to do that reaching out thing he spoke about in his innaugural, now would be a good time to do it. We don't need a my way or the highway attitude when it comes to a judicial appointment of this magnatude.

This is what the big push to get rid of the fillabuster was about, the appointment of a SCJ. They have that "clause" for extreme circumstances...if this isn't one I don't know what is.


(

[SueC]

I'm sad that she is retiring--it's scary as hell what this could do to women's rights. Too bad she can't hang in there for a couple more years. I was shocked because I assumed Renquist would be the first to go.

[SuzySunshine]

You are correct she is retiring to be with her husband, he has alzheimers. Its too bad that she has leave under those circumstances. It will be interesting to see how the nominations go - the democrats are never going to let Bush get away with someone that is to far to one side on some issues. Hopefully they get it taken care of soon though because she's staying until someone is confirmed and I'm sure that is time she'd rather spend with her husband.

Re: Sandra Day O'connor

I feel as if we are going to revert to the 1950s.
Luanne

Ditto.

It was 1965 before you could tell a married couple how to use contraceptive methods, let alone actually prescibe them in Connecticut.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=479


1965!

[PrincessFiona]

It's too bad that the political affiliations 'impartial' arbiters of the law should matter at all. After all, if they are simply interpreting our constitution should it matter if they are pro-life or support gay marriage? It shouldn't matter at all. :titanic:

kris

[SuzySunshine]

I know you guys won't beleive this but from the G-8 this morning Bush said he will not nominate based on abortion stance...

[Auspicious]

Well, if Pres. Bush is saying it, then it must be true!




:!

[Rapunzel]

It's too bad that the political affiliations 'impartial' arbiters of the law should matter at all. After all, if they are simply interpreting our constitution should it matter if they are pro-life or support gay marriage? It shouldn't matter at all. :titanic:

I totally agree with this.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court we have today hasn't been known for simply "interpreting" the Constitution. We increasingly see judiciaries (federal and state) legislating rather than interpreting. My current state of Massachusetts is a perfect example of this. Don't like a law? Don't bother writing your legislator - contact a state/federal Supreme Court justice!

Jennifer

[DCJenn]

Ok, all, here it comes....

and NO, I don't think it's a coincidence that it's timed as things were getting a tad uncomfortable for Rove. (who by the way was NOT at the state dinner for the Indian Prime Minister last evening, but, there was an after the dinner party that didn't release the guest lists...hmmm, guess he couldn't come to the public event.)

Jenn

PS- yes, the guest lists are published in the Post. Makes for interesting reading. For example, Secretary Rice did not bring a companion...

[Sheherezade]

What's your bet? Hyper conservative, or peace-making nominee? Maybe someone with very little record to dig in to? I'm curious. And why prime-time???? Have we always done this? It seems there are an awful lot of prime-time announcements on TV these days.

[Rapunzel]

I don't care what the nominee's personal politics or opinions are as long as the individual will strictly interpret the actual Constitution as it is written and not insert an agenda into their rulings (including making up new "rights").

Jennifer

[Sheherezade]

Jennifer --

You seem well informed on the legal front. (Seriously, I'm not picking a fight!! ) When I was taking law classes in Boston, there was lots of talk about the "reshaping" of the Supreme Court - but instead of the abortion issue dominating the press, the concern presented was that the court would revoke many acts of administrative law such as the ADA and regulation by the EPA. Do you know much about this angle? I've been trying to find out more, but I haven't seen this reported. I'm not sure that less government is a bad idea, but sweeping out regulation with a Supreme Court decision would certainly shake up the country. Any info you - or anyone else! - has would be appreciated.

We've got John Roberts....and weeks of fighting to come. Welcome to the USA.

[Rapunzel]

Dang it, Angie, you would ask me a good, deep question when my IQ has sunk to the equivalent of my shoe-size.

So, briefly: I can't answer specifics regarding rulings affecting environmental legislation and such at the moment BUT I do think it would be beneficial for the court to issue rulings that do NOT infringe on state's Constitutional rights. It wouldn't hurt for the court to knock the federal government down a few notches in my opinion. I wrote a paper on something related to this years ago. I'll have to see if I kept it (probably didn't in all of our moves ).

Let me mull it over a bit (and get some more sleep first!) because I'm just loopy right now....

Jennifer