Justice O'Conner announces retirement

[markd_nscr986 0]

Not what I expected,but it should be interesting to see who replaces her


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161308,00.html

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Not what I expected,but it should be interesting to see who replaces her


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161308,00.html

A quote from the article that some of those house republicans
should get into their skulls:

"We aren't here trying to develop something in the sense of where the country should go with this issue. We're a reactive institution," O'Connor said in an Associated Press interview Monday. "We proceed case by case as they come to us, and not with any overarching objective that the court itself" has developed.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[rehmwa 2]

And it begins....


her son was a skydiver

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

Cry 'havoc!' and let loose the DNC attack machine!

O'Connor was often a swing vote on the court. This is going to be a bloody confirmation process. I think Chief Justice Scalia or Chief Justice Thomas will also be in the near future.

Look for mudslinging by the leftists as we've never seen before. I say nominate Judge Janeyce R. Brown to the SCOTUS right now. In light of their recent abominable decision in Kelso we need people of her opinion on the high court right now. Never happen, but it would be nice.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,131]

>Cry 'havoc!' and let loose the DNC attack machine!

Ha! The GOP was airing attack ads two weeks ago.

[PhreeZone 20]

Honestly... I look for by the time Summer is over to be looking at 2 or possibly 3 open seats on the SC. Its been 12 years since the last opening... its not going to be pretty no matter what if there are that many seats open at once.

O'Conner voted pretty conservitive except on a few issues. The other 2 openings are going to be the issue. If they push moderate nominies its a good chance the outer frindges of both parties are not going to go for it and lobby against them. With names like DeWine being tossed around its not going to be pretty.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Quote

Not what I expected,but it should be interesting to see who replaces her


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161308,00.html

A quote from the article that some of those house republicans representatives should get into their skulls:

"We aren't here trying to develop something in the sense of where the country should go with this issue. We're a reactive institution," O'Connor said in an Associated Press interview Monday. "We proceed case by case as they come to us, and not with any overarching objective that the court itself" has developed.

fixed it for ya.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Gawain 0]

I'd have to disagree with her statement on that in light of the recent 5-4 decision (of which, she was in the minority I believe) on private property rights and emminent domain for local governments.

The slinging from the edges, and especially the left is going to get messy. The President is going to continue to pick strong minded constructionalist judges who will look at our laws and Constitution, and not those of foreign nations to guide their decisions.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

You cannot possibly deny that the Dem's invented and mastered the art of 'Borking' Presidential nominees.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,131]

>You cannot possibly deny that the Dem's invented and mastered
>the art of 'Borking' Presidential nominees.

Right. Just like they invented the filibuster and impeachment.

[TheAnvil 0]

I challenge you to find one Carter or Clinton appointee that suffered the character assasination inflicted upon Justice Thomas, Robert Bork, or John Ashcroft. Lonnie Guanier(spelling?) - I think not. Zoe Baird - not hardly. Justice Ginsberg - no way.

Justice O'Connor's recent positions - in Kelso and that horrid decision in which she supported racial discrimination at the University of Michigan - tell me that it's time she retired. Wasn't it her, writing for the majority, that had the ludicrious quote about 'perhaps in 25 years' racial discrimination for collegiate admissions would no longer be necessary? Disgusting.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mikkey 0]

Just a question for you Americans from way down here. Most western style democracies have similar institutions like the US supreme court, courts who’s objectives is to protect the constitution and be a safety measure against the legislative or executive arm infringing on the constitution.

Looking from the outside, I find it interesting how political the process of appointing a supreme court justice is (or any other senior judge). Does the process which gives a President the right to nominate and the majority in legislative assembly to confirm endanger the objective of the court? Looks from outside that these judges are more chosen on their political affiliation and less on their legal competency. Isn’t this a problem in relation to the role that a supreme court is supposed to fulfil? What do you guys think?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,131]

>Justice Ginsberg - no way.

I agree there. Of course, Clinton didn't just ram extremist candidates (like, say, Bruce Babbitt) down people's throats. From Orrin Hatch's autobiography:

------------------------
I told him (clinton) that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
-----------------------------

What are the odds that Bush will consult with Leahy, and choose a moderate instead of an extremist? Any bets?

[TheAnvil 0]

After Leahy's comments about the man and conduct that got him ousted fromt he Intelligence committee, were I in GWB's shoes I wouldn't contact the man at all for anything. But that's just Pat Leahy. I might consult w/Sen. Joe Lieberman though. Perhaps Evan Bayh. Definitely not Kennedy, Reid, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, or that crowd though.

I think in the Dem's current state of mind any judge who has ever ruled in favor of school vouchers or gun rights or parental notification rights will be labelled as an extremist by PFAW, NARAL, NOW, NEA, etc. and therefore be targeted for Borking, Borking, and more Borking.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Hmm...interesting. It might be hard to find an apolitical method for such an appointment. In the current system you have two of the three branches of gov't - Executive and Legislative - involved in choosing a member of the third branch, the Judicial.

I'm against direct election of Supreme Court Justices and think the appointment process is a good thing.

Any recommendations for improvement?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Hmm...interesting. It might be hard to find an apolitical method for such an appointment. In the current system you have two of the three branches of gov't - Executive and Legislative - involved in choosing a member of the third branch, the Judicial.

I'm against direct election of Supreme Court Justices and think the appointment process is a good thing.

Any recommendations for improvement?

Well,

I have been doing a little research what other countries are doing:

------------------------------------------------------------
Judges on Australian courts, whether Federal or State, are appointed by the government of the day. While it is true that there has been no concerted or sustained campaign to change the manner in which judges are chosen, it is also true that in recent years there has been some level of dissatisfaction with the way in which judges are chosen and there have been calls for reform to the appointment process.
High Court judges are appointed by the Governor-General in Council; other judges by the Governor in Council. In reality of course, the appointments are made by the Federal and State ministries on the recommendation of the Federal and State Attorneys-General.

The process of appointing judges to the High Court of Australia is not unique. Indeed, appointment to the superior courts in each of the Australian States and Territories, in Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand is by the government of the day.

Further, 'in most jurisdictions where judges are appointed by the Executive, no clear standardised procedures exist beyond statutory requirements of professional qualifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------


So in above countries its is clearly the government in power who appoints judges to High/Supreme Court – however those appointments seem far less shrouded in controversy. It might have to do with that the US Supreme Court is more “hands on” /influential on day to day politics?

South Africa has a very different system:
------------------------------------------------------------

South Africa has adopted a different model in relation to appointments to its courts, including to the South African Constitutional Court.
The South African Constitutional Court consists of a President, a Deputy President and 9 other judges. The President of South Africa appoints the President and Deputy President of the Constitutional Court 'after consulting the Judicial Service Commission and the leaders of the parties represented in the National Assembly. The South African President also appoints the other judges of the Constitutional Court after consulting the President of the Court and the leaders of the parties represented in the National Assembly. The following procedure must be followed:
a. The Judicial Service Commission must prepare a list of nominees with three names more than the number of appointments to be made, and submit the list to the President.
b. The President may make appointments from the list, and must advise the Judicial Service Commission, with reasons, if any of the nominees are unacceptable and any appointment remains to be made.
c. The Judicial Service Commission must supplement the list with further nominees and the President must make the remaining appointments from the supplemented list.
The Judicial Service Commission consists of 23 members as follows:
; three senior judges, including the President of the Constitutional Court
; the Justice Minister
; two barristers, nominated by the Bar
; two solicitors, nominated by the profession
; a legal academic designated by university teachers of law
; six members of the National Assembly (three of whom must be members of the Opposition)
; four permanent delegates of the National Council of Provinces, and
; four persons designated by the President following consultation with leaders of all political parties in the National Assembly.
The Judicial Service Commission may determine its own procedures. For example, it conducts interviews with potential candidates for judicial office in public and indeed transcripts of interview are published on the Internet.

-------------------------------------------------------
The German system:

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht besteht aus sechzehn Richterinnen und Richtern. Die eine Hälfte wählt der Bundestag, die andere der Bundesrat, jeweils mit Zweidrittelmehrheit. Die Amtszeit beträgt zwölf Jahre. Eine Wiederwahl ist ausgeschlossen. Das Gericht entscheidet durch einen Senat oder eine Kammer.


Translation: The Constitutional Court consists of 16 judges. Half is elected by the Bundestag (one chamber of Parliament comparable to the Congress) and the other half by the Bundesrat (second Chamber representing the States – comparable to the Senate). The judges can only serve for a maximum of 12 years and not be re-elected. The judges have to be elected by 2/3 rd majority.

---------------------------------------------------------

So the process is not apoltical anywhere. However I find there is merit in the more consultative process in South Africa and especially I also like the German system:
1) Limiting the tenure to 12 years prevents some stubborn senile guys to remain on the supreme court beyond his/hers capacity to fulfill the role.
2) Splitting the appointments between the 2 chambers of parliament is not a bad idea
3) I like especially the rule of 2/3 majority for electeion/confirmation. This way you ensure the parties have to compromise and the nominees will not be too political / extremist. I like that.

Cheers

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

You cannot possibly deny that the Dem's invented and mastered the art of 'Borking' Presidential nominees.

Robert Bork was and is an asshole. The guy doesn't even think married couples have a legal righht to use birth control within the sanctity of their own homes and marriages. Bork was the obedient hatchet man Nixon turned to after the Attny General of the United States resigned and his next in command at Justice was fired for refusing to sack Watergate Special Council Archibald Cox. But Bork was only too happy to do the job.

Bork told the Senate committee he wanted the job so he could enjoy "the intellectual feast". fuck him, we have real lives to live, not for some asshole scholar to amuse himself with.

The confirmation process exists to prevent complete asshole like Bork from getting critical appointments and the system worked just fine, thank you very much.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Robert Bork was and is an asshole. The guy doesn't even think married couples have a legal righht to use birth control within the sanctity of their own homes and marriages.

I wouldn't call him an asshole. He just said that he sees nowhere in the Constitution a right to birth control. He also said that, with the exception of the 4th Amendment, the Constitution does not have a right to privacy.

Rather than attack him with substance to undermine his arguments, they attacked Bork personally. Ted kennedy said on the Senate Floor within an hour of Bork's nomination, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution,"

Bork sought to overturn decisions of prior courts, like the Warren Court. After all, these courts overturned Constitutional doctrine that was decades old!

Is there anything wong with a judge who thinks that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written? The basic operating instructions for the US government should mean the same now as it did then, right?

I had a Volkswagen. That car is 25 years old. Do the words in the owner's manual mean somethign different now? Can we look back and say that engine should have been "water-cooled" so we'll construe it to mean instructions for a water-cooled engine as opposed to air-cooled.

Bork simply thinks that the Supreme Court should stick to interpreting the Constitution, and avoid "political questions."

For that he is an asshole?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,131]

>Is there anything wong with a judge who thinks that the Constitution
>means what it meant when it was written?

Yes. The original constitution requires escaped slaves be returned to their owners. I have a problem with that.

>The basic operating instructions for the US government should
>mean the same now as it did then, right?

Nope. Lots of things have changed since then. Heck, the Pledge of Allegiance changed; they added "Under God" which would make some of the founding fathers turn over in their graves. There are more people. There is more communication. Privacy means something different today. WMD's require different handling than rifles.

>I had a Volkswagen. That car is 25 years old. Do the words in the
>owner's manual mean somethign different now?

Yes. You may have to know that it takes leaded gas, for example, because gas nowadays doesn't have lead in it, and the original manual may not have even thought to mention that. Synthetic oil might not work in it, and the manual might not mention that, because there was no synthetic oil back then. If you were to sell it, you might want to point out that it does not have airbags or three point seatbelts (if that's the case) because such features are accepted as the norm nowadays.

Note that nothing in the car or manual changed, but how we interpret those words has changed. "Gasoline" in the manual might have meant leaded; now it means unleaded, and they are different.

(I have no idea if your car takes leaded gas or has only a lap belt or whatever, but those things were all true of my '73 Datsun.)

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Yes. The original constitution requires escaped slaves be returned to their owners.

Where does it require that? The word slave appears nowhere in the original Consitution.

Quote

Heck, the Pledge of Allegiance changed

The pledge is referenced in the Constitution? Nope.

Quote

Yes. You may have to know that it takes leaded gas

Well you can run unleaded in an engine made to take leaded, but not the other way around... regardless, it does not change the manual... now VW counld issue and Amendment if they wanted to change the actual document... much the way that if we need to address the operating instructions for the governement we can amend the Constitution, something that is done through the legislative process, not the judical one.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is there anything wong with a judge who thinks that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written? The basic operating instructions for the US government should mean the same now as it did then, right?

So where in the Constitution does it give the Feds license to look into your use of birth control?

[billvon 3,131]

>Where does it require that? The word slave appears nowhere in
>the original Consitution.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, Interstate Relations and Fugitive Slaves:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

>Well you can run unleaded in an engine made to take leaded, but
> not the other way around... regardless, it does not change the
> manual... now VW counld issue and Amendment if they wanted to
> change the actual document...

Of course. And thus change the interpretation of the manual. The original manual was not wrong, but could not cover future unforseen changes in fuel type. It needs to be updated as time goes on - just as our constitution does.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, Interstate Relations and Fugitive Slaves:

OK, I did a quick look and my version does not have the clause titled in that way (it has State Citizens and Extradition), nor does the original document... regardless, that clause was rendered inoperative by the 13th Amendment.

Quote

The original manual was not wrong, but could not cover future unforseen changes in fuel type. It needs to be updated as time goes on - just as our constitution does.

There is a process set out for "updating" the Constitution, and it is not through judicial interpretation, it is through Amendment, just as in the citation above... Amending the manual does not change the interpretation of the document, it changes the document itself... there is a difference.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,131]

>Amending the manual does not change the interpretation of the
>document, it changes the document itself... there is a difference.

Constitutional amendments do both. Some clarify points in the constitution; some actually change it. The first amendment does not change anything in the original constitution but the thirteenth invalidates the slavery clause.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Some clarify points in the constitution; some actually change it

And judicial interpretation does neither... it just leaves things up to further interpretation, by future courts...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke