Justice O'Connor Retires

Zoop! · Post by **Zoop!** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:02 am

...and so it begins...

I honestly want a moderate like O'Connor (because swing votes are more fun!). I don't think that will happen.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:29 am

Woohoo! We're going nu-kler, baby! Brace for impact!

Couver_ · Post by **Couver_** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:40 am

Nice timing. Pay back a republican by allowing one to choose your replacement.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:50 pm

there are 2, possibly 3 more that have a real high probability of retiring in this administration's time too. a few in their late 70s early 80s, no?

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:21 am

bash wrote:Woohoo! We're going nu-kler, baby! Brace for impact!

I got your joke Bash, even though you misspelled "nukuler".

This is a big-time moment for Bush. A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into getting him re-elected, largely on the basis of judicial reform. And the judiciary needs reforming. It has been going downhill ever since Congress Borked Robert Bork, and it's time for a course correction.

Personally, I'm partial to Janice Rogers Brown -- since she's a California Supreme Court Justice - recently appointed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I attended oral argument before the Cal. Supreme Court a couple of months ago -- on a case I'd been monitoring. She was still on the bench then, and it was really a very educational experience watching a bench of seven interact with counsel. Brown hasn't been mentioned as a leading candidate for SCOTUS, but there are good reasons to appoint her.

As an example, I guarantee she would not have voted with the majority in that ridiculous Kelo takings clause decision a few days ago. Here's a snippet from a dissent of Brown's to illustrate why:

Hon. Janice Rogers Brown wrote: [P]rivate property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Franciscoâ?¦I would find the HCO [San Francisco Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance] preempted by the Ellis Act and facially unconstitutional. â?¦Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government. â?¦The right to express oneâ??s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion. (Emphasis added.) [Dissenting opinion in San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 P.3d 87, 120, 128-9 (Cal. 2002)(upholding San Francisco ordinance calling on hotel owners seeking permission to eliminate residential units and convert to tourist hotels help replace lost rental units for low income, elderly, and disabled persons)][

Libertarians should support her nomination, since libertarians are notorious for their loathing of takings.

Speaking of taking stuff, the last thing libertarians want is to have the gubbament take their guns from them. Justice Brown feels the same way! Writing on the Second Amendment, she said "surely, the right to preserve oneâ??s life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve oneâ??s privacy." [Concurring opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 602 (Cal. 2000), cert. denied.]

Lots of other examples, but here's a big problem for any Democratic move to filibuster her, by invoking the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of the deal they struck with Republicans -- they've already approved her a few weeks ago. It will look a little silly now, to come flying back in screeching she's a right-wing nutcase, when the Senate just put her on the DC Court of Appeals.

What's not to love? Stay tuned!!

BD

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:09 pm

If the Dems play it smart, they will allow just about anyone short of Ann Coulter for this first nomination. Then that person can be the "extraordinary" bench mark.

This will put the pressure on the Republicans for the next nomination (which there will almost certaintly be) to come up with someone less conservative then this one. Because if they nominate someone more conservative, the Democrates can use "extraordinary circumstances," and still save face.

If they use ec on this first run, it will just look bad for them.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:21 pm

With Rhenquist looking like Death Warmed Over there will be two appointments for Bush, perhaps even concurrently. Singly, the Dems could block, bluster and threaten and probably each new appointee would be moderate, but with two, as Goob mentioned, at least one will likely be dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Really, that is all the Bush folks have been hoping for, just one. A double-whammy would be another non-White candidate like Rogers or Gonzales that will further erode the loyalties of part of the Dem base. With two openings, their odds to achieve that have just gotten much better by enabling them to toss a bone to the Dems for a center/right moderate in the other slot. The net effect would still be a slight shift to the right. That said, the whining and fearmongering from the Left is going to be insufferable during the process.

In related news, the heat will probably come off Bolton as part of the negotiations and as a show of *good faith* from the Dems prior to Bush submitting his SCOTUS nominations.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:26 pm

bash wrote:Really, that is all the Bush folks have been hoping for, just one.

I think the court needs stacking; I'm hoping for more than one. But you and Goob are probably right on a practical level.

BD

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:20 pm

I really wish the Democrats would just step back, vote their conscience, and see how things turn out. Vote no on conservative judges, but if they pass, they pass. Vote no on Bolton, but if he passes, he passes.

Let America have, exactly what it voted for.

Now is the perfect moment for the Democrats to step back, and continuously load the â??I told you soâ?? cannon. If it never gets to be fired, then hats off to the republicans. But if you have any faith that what you are saying is what America wants: then sheâ??ll blow....without the aid of any senator.

But itâ??s not about believing in anything anymore, itâ??s about themselves.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:37 am

"Let America have, exactly what it voted for."

You know, when I'm sober, I thoroughly believe that. But when I get a little vodka in me, ★■◆● all that noise. Theres no reason why liberals should lay down and accept a successful attempt to guide the masses down the wrong road.

It's very easy to sit back and say 'hey, we're a stupid country and are acting stupidly, we'll see how it turns out.'

I'll just stop right now, and laugh at this tomorrow.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:20 am

As a conservative I say

"Let America have, exactly what it voted for."

You know, when I'm sober, I thoroughly believe that. But when I get a little vodka in me, **** all that noise. Theres no reason why conservatives should lay down and accept a successful attempt to guide the masses down the wrong road.

It's very easy to sit back and say 'hey, we're a stupid country and are acting stupidly, we'll see how it turns out.'

I'll just stop right now, and laugh at this tomorrow.