Justice O'Connor stepping down from US Supreme Court

[feakbeak]

Linky (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/)

Looks like the scales will be tipping. O'Connor was always the swing vote that tended to keep things balanced.

Personal thoughts: Uh Oh... Rehnquist was supposed to go first! :(

[IJ Reilly]

What a surprise, but I didn't realize she was 75. The Court will certainly now take a hard turn to the right.

[Don't panic]

Linky (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/)

Looks like the scales will be tipping. O'Connor was always the swing vote that tended to keep things balanced.

Personal thoughts: Uh Oh... Rehnquist was supposed to go first! :(

terrible news.
and when rehnquist goes it will be a total disaster for next 20 ys.

[miloblithe]

Hopefully Rehnquist will retire soon and some kind of deal could be reached for confirming a conservative (those lovely 'strict constructionists') and a relative moderate. It's going to be a shift to the right, but we can at least hope we don't get two more Thomases or Scalias.

[feakbeak]

terrible news.
and when rehnquist goes it will be a total disaster for next 20 ys.Rehnquist follows party lines much more than O'Connor so having him replaced with a staunch conservative wouldn't have been much of a change. I didn't think O'Connor wouldn't be stepping down so soon.

miloblithe, I'm not as optimistic as you are that a deal might be reached if/when the next justice retires. Bush owes his second-term in large part to the evangelical right and they know it. Since the supreme court decides many ethical questions within our goverment they are going to be watching his appointment very carefully. The only requirement for confirmation is a simple majority in the Senate which the Republicans have at the moment. I doubt the Dems can filibuster out of this one.

We'll have to see how it all plays out.

[Thomas Veil]

Prepare for the Senate filibuster agreement to go to hell because of "extraordinary circumstances", i.e., Bush nominating a hard-line conservative. Anybody thinking he'll recommend a moderate is dreaming.

"So hold on tight/
let the fight begin..."

[Sun Baked]

This should be and interesting battle...

I wonder if this battle will be enough to shift the spotlight away from all the other hot-button issues.

[IJ Reilly]

More likely, it will make all the other hot button issues radioactive.

[mactastic]

WARNING: Sharp right turn ahead. Please fasten seatbelts and hold on tight. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[Sayhey]

Now, all those who voted for Bush and took it for granted that their rights wouldn't change are in for a huge shock. Horrible news!

[stridey]

****. Well this just blows. Good thing we have checks and balan... oh. Wait. The Republicans now control all three branches of government. We're screwed.

[stubeeef]

Now, all those who voted for Bush and took it for granted that their rights wouldn't change are in for a huge shock. Horrible news!

Well, don't forget it was O'Connor in the minority on our ownership rights.
That ED ruling didn't give the left a big "warm and fuzzy" from the nation, it did not help them much that's for sure.

So, before the "we don't like that person" finger pointing starts, who would the left support, that is a possible Candidate?

[zimv20]

last call, kids. don't disturb the neighbors on your way out.

[Sayhey]

I've never been a "fan" of Justice O'Connor, but obviously she has been a swing vote on a number of vitally important issues - abortion is only the most well known. I don't know of a likely nominee from this President that will be acceptable and I anticipate battles over this that make the Bork nomination seem tame, but this was all foreseeable with the election of Dubya last year. Like your right to privacy? Perhaps Americans will wake up and see it matters who they elect.

[stubeeef]

Like your right to privacy? Perhaps Americans will wake up and see it matters who they elect.

Yes I like my right to privacy, and also home ownership, and if you think the GOP swing votes are going to be there for Harry to gather, you are wrong, especially after that ED vote. Like they say, timing is everything.
I prefer to whine after seeing the nominee, but then there is always the "avoid the rush, whine early" crowd.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, a miracle will occur and Bush will nominate a moderate.

[mactastic]

Of course not. Bush has no heart. Or brain.

[Sayhey]

Yes I like my right to privacy, and also home ownership, and if you think the GOP swing votes are going to be there for Harry to gather, you are wrong, especially after that ED vote. Like they say, timing is everything.
I prefer to whine after seeing the nominee, but then there is always the "avoid the rush, whine early" crowd.

Funny, I don't think concern over basic privacy rights can be described as "whining." Personally, I think I've been shouting the dangers of this Presidency for quite sometime. This fight will only confirm how dangerous he is to the everyday lives of Americans.

edit: for those who want to do something about this upcoming battle over the direction of the courts, here is a website to start with: SaveTheCourt.org (https://www.kintera.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.846831/k.E861/Volunteer/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?kntaw9310=5A690D24343D48FE80C173E6C2D075C5)

[stubeeef]

Those evil Republican Appointments

June 25-28, 2005 - Principle is a tricky thing. Compromise on it just once and an avalanche of negative consequences could result. The details I’m about to lay before you may seem obtuse but in my mind they add up just fine.

One of America's greatest presidents was Ronald Reagan. But for all intents and purposes, he accepted the blame for selling arms to terrorists. Whether he actually is the most responsible in the affair can be debated to the bitter end, but one fact can’t be overlooked – a Republican administration traded arms for hostages.

-The scandal rocked Reagan’s final two years in office and for the first time since he took office, Reagan appeared weak.

-This weakness emboldened a bitterly divided Senate led by Ted Kennedy to successfully oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Constitutionalist Robert Bork.

-When the dust settled, we got Anthony Kennedy as a Supreme Court justice.

-America and the U.S. Constitution suffered through more than a few of his votes.

Aside from Kennedy, the Supreme Court has a fundamental problem – Republicans have placed 7 of the current nine justices on the bench, but less than half of those 7 are actually conservatives.

Republicans are continually squandering opportunity after opportunity to imprint the court with judges who hold on to a Bork-like vision of upholding the law as it applies to the “Founder’s Constitution.”

Have you ever heard of Roe versus Wade? Thought so. How about Planned Parenthood versus Casey? In that 1992 case, states would’ve been given the right to set their own abortion laws. Imagine that, “states' rights” being considered by a branch of the federal government!

In a chamber vote the justices ruled in favor of giving states the right to govern abortion laws by a 5 to 4 margin. But when it came time to actually publish the decision, one man changed his mind, and Roe versus Wade was essentially upheld. That justice was Anthony Kennedy.

He was swayed by John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun. Stevens was appointed by Ford and Blackmun by Nixon – two other Republican nominations wasted. By the way, it was Blackmun who authored the original Roe decision. And then the Republican appointed Blackmun waited until a Democrat was in the White House in order to retire (in my most humble opinion, that is).

Have you ever heard of Lee versus Weisman? That case took place in 1992 as well. By a 5 to 4 vote it disallowed the evil act of praying at high school graduations. One justice, prodded along by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens switched sides yet again! His name? Anthony Kennedy.

In light of recent history in the realm of "separation of church and state" it's a good thing the U.S. Constitution was written after The Declaration of Independence or it too would've likely been declared unconstitutional before it hit King George III's desk. We can't have an official government document with passages like "endowed by our Creator" misrepresenting our ideology the world over.

Aside from the likes of Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun, the broader theme is the idiocy that Republican nominated Supreme Court justices and politicians seem to exude, to the determent of America.

Have you ever heard of McConnell versus Federal Election Commission? The McCain-Feingold Act that limits free speech when it pertains to financing political campaigns? A Republican president by the name of George W. Bush voted it into law with the likely presumption that he would get credit for showing "progressivism" in this area while the Supreme Court did the dirty work of declaring it unconstitutional.

Guess what? By a 5 to 4 margin (remember 7 are Republican appointees) it was upheld. To Kennedy's credit, he was on the right (but losing) side.

Recently the court handed down a decision in Raich versus Gonzales. Essentially medical marijuana has been outlawed by the 6 to 3 decision. This is not a case about pot. It's a case about a state's sovereignty and right to govern itself.

11 states were told their laws are unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause had been violated regulating commerce between the states. The court stretched itself to the outer limits of justification and the founders' version of states' rights continues to be ignored.

The Tenth Amendment, outlining states' rights reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So straight forward and so simple, yet so often ignored. The powers of the federal government have a clear limit. The powers afforded to the states are virtually boundless. And if anyone in Washington, DC is aware that this amendment exists, they've conveniently disregarded it since the late 1800's. I guess they're too busy looking to foreign law to take the time to glance at The Bill of Rights.

Oh, and regarding the marijuana case Raich versus Gonzales, the justices voting in favor of state's rights were Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. I think aliens took Antonin Scalia's brain out for lunch that day.

It is anticipated that we are mere days from hearing of another Supreme Court vacancy with William Rehnquist's expected retirement. The ideology on the court will not change in favor of conservatives. The near misses in 1992 with abortion and church/state separation will not be attainable goals of the right for at a good while longer.

Republicans lost their chance with bad appointees and a little thing called "negotiating with terrorists." And by that I think I'm referring to Iran-Contra, not senate democrats. I think. Link (http://www.therant.us/staff/guest/malinak/the_supreme_court_is_far_from_conservative_thank_the_gop.htm)

[Sayhey]

Those evil Republican Appointments

Link (http://www.therant.us/staff/guest/malinak/the_supreme_court_is_far_from_conservative_thank_the_gop.htm)

Who said anything about "Republican Appointments"? This has to do with what the likely nominee will be like from this President. A new Scalia or Thomas is much more likely than a new Stevens or even a new Kennedy. If that is allowed to happen it will have a very large impact on those who are concerned about such things as privacy rights, be they Democrats or Republicans. Many or us said this would happen if Bush won in 2004, and now it maybe dawning on those moderate Democrats and Republicans who didn't think the make up of the Supreme Court was an important enough issue to vote against Dubya just how wrong they were.

[QCassidy352]

I thought Rehnquist was on the way out, O'Conner I didn't see coming so soon. It's too bad; I think she's actually one of the smarter and more reasonable members of the supreme court. She also provides a sense of balance that I think is really valuable whether you usually come down on the right or the left.

[ham_man]

Let's just say it these next few months will be very interesting... :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Interesting indeed. And divisive I'm sure. What was that slogan Bush campaigned on? I'm a something, not a something else....

[Sun Baked]

More likely, it will make all the other hot button issues radioactive.I hate to agree with you, but this may prove to be true ... as the radioactive material hits the trigger point, goes nuclear, and gets the political forum shut down for awhile.

Been awhile since one of those topics has come up.

[stubeeef]

Many or us said this would happen if Bush won in 2004, and now it maybe dawning on those moderate Democrats and Republicans who didn't think the make up of the Supreme Court was an important enough issue to vote against Dubya just how wrong they were.

Said what would happen, he would be in a position to make nominations? heck that is some oracle there! The only real surprise, no one retired his first term. Anyone thinking that there would not be a retirement over this term would have to be looney.

[Sayhey]

Said what would happen, he would be in a position to make nominations? heck that is some oracle there! The only real surprise, no one retired his first term. Anyone thinking that there would not be a retirement over this term would have to be looney.

Looking for a fight today, stu? Never claimed to be an oracle. I, along with many others, only claimed that those who downplayed the importance of Bush appointees on the Supreme Court were being very shortsighted. If another Scalia or Thomas is confirmed to the Court we will all pay for it for a very long period of time.

[IJ Reilly]

I hate to agree with you, but this may prove to be true ... as the radioactive material hits the trigger point, goes nuclear, and gets the political forum shut down for awhile.

Been awhile since one of those topics has come up.

Well, I hate to agree with you, too. ;)

[stubeeef]

Looking for a fight today, stu? Never claimed to be an oracle. I, along with many others, only claimed that those who downplayed the importance of Bush appointees on the Supreme Court were being very shortsighted. If another Scalia or Thomas is confirmed to the Court we will all pay for it for a very long period of time.

No, not at all, I just don't get it yet. If you are a liberal than you will probably not like much of a conservative administration. If you are a conservative, you will not like much of a liberal administration. There is really no big surprise at all here, in fact it seems ever so redundant. There are a lot of ifs, and I am concerned that someone I don't want to be on the SC is put on too, only I am waiting to panic at the appointed time, and not before. This was inevitable during this administration, there was little or no doubt about it, the only thing that would/could stop it is W's death, and Cheneys for that matter, I lose precedence memory from there, could be the Tex Congressman? Sec of State (remember Hage), but irregardless the far left will not like anyone put up for the vote so this has a very predictable course. There is really nothing here to say was a big "I told ya so".

[IJ Reilly]

No, not at all, I just don't get it yet. If you are a liberal than you will probably not like much of a conservative administration. If you are a conservative, you will not like much of a liberal administration. There is really no big surprise at all here, in fact it seems ever so redundant. There are a lot of ifs, and I am concerned that someone I don't want to be on the SC is put on too, only I am waiting to panic at the appointed time, and not before. This was inevitable during this administration, there was little or no doubt about it, the only thing that would/could stop it is W's death, and Cheneys for that matter, I lose precedence memory from there, could be the Tex Congressman? Sec of State (remember Hage), but irregardless the far left will not like anyone put up for the vote so this has a very predictable course. There is really nothing here to say was a big "I told ya so".

Or the middle, or even the middle-right. Bush has already stated that Scalia and Thomas are his models of the ideal justices -- probably the most ideologically conservative judges to sit on the Court in recent memory. Put one more of those on the bench, and even conservatives like yourself might end up being pretty unhappy with the results.

[Sayhey]

No, not at all, I just don't get it yet. If you are a liberal than you will probably not like much of a conservative administration. If you are a conservative, you will not like much of a liberal administration. There is really no big surprise at all here, in fact it seems ever so redundant. There are a lot of ifs, and I am concerned that someone I don't want to be on the SC is put on too, only I am waiting to panic at the appointed time, and not before. This was inevitable during this administration, there was little or no doubt about it, the only thing that would/could stop it is W's death, and Cheneys for that matter, I lose precedence memory from there, could be the Tex Congressman? Sec of State (remember Hage), but irregardless the far left will not like anyone put up for the vote so this has a very predictable course. There is really nothing here to say was a big "I told ya so".

What you don't get, stu, is this is not a "far left" issue. The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with this President on a whole host of issues, including privacy rights, and yet a certain number chose to ignore the inevitable erosion of those rights under his probable appointees and voted in enough numbers to elect the idiot. It is not just the left (btw, is the "far left" everybody who is a registered Democrat or just anyone with politics to left of Joe Leiberman?) who will likely be stripped of basic rights under this new Court. I don't think they will look at your voter registration when we are denied access to birth control or abortions. What we are up against is a likely nominee chosen from with the approval of the "far right" of the fundamentalist movement. If you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson helping choose the direction of the US Supreme Court for the next twenty years, most of the American people don't. It's just too bad some of them will be just waking up to that reality a little late in the game - and, yes, they deserve a very large "I TOLD YOU SO."

Civics 101 - order of succession is to the Vice-President, then to the Speaker of the House, then to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

edit: btw that is Cheney to Hastert to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

[Xtremehkr]

True to form, Sandra is unpredictable. To the very end, she has been a difficult person to predict.

And true to the times, there is still too much faith the modern conservative agenda to reasonably explain why such an agenda may not be the bargain supporters think they have achieved.

It bothers me that many people feel the most effective safeguard against tyranny is personal gun ownership. While it is an important element, it most often comes up woefully short when faced against a well organized militia that has the advantage of information offered by privacy robbing powers that have been achieved through bills like the Patriot Acts.

There is already widespread discontent with the new conservative agenda. The nominee Bush chooses to advance may only help the results achieved in the 2006 election.

Replacing Rheinquist with another arch conservative would have been a moot point. Replacing Sandra Day O'Connor is something else entirely.

[mactastic]

In 1993, when Justice Byron White retired from the bench, President Clinton was thinking of nominating Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who was not necessarily the most popular choice, to fill the seat. Did Clinton try to ram the appointment through? He could have - he still had a pretty sizable majority in the Senate at that point.

But in fact, Clinton decided to discuss the vacancy with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who was "not surprised" that the President reached out to him. As Hatch relates in his 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.

I'm guessing Bush won't go this route. He'll more likely choose the 'thumb in your eye' path.
Link'd (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/1/171229/1819)

[stubeeef]

What you don't get, stu, is this is not a "far left" issue. The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with this President on a whole host of issues, including privacy rights, and yet a certain number chose to ignore the inevitable erosion of those rights under his probable appointees and voted in enough numbers to elect the idiot. It is not just the left (btw, is the "far left" everybody who is a registered Democrat or just anyone with politics to left of Joe Leiberman?) who will likely be stripped of basic rights under this new Court. I don't think they will look at your voter registration when we are denied access to birth control or abortions. What we are up against is a likely nominee chosen from with the approval of the "far right" of the fundamentalist movement. If you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson helping choose the direction of the US Supreme Court for the next twenty years, most of the American people don't. It's just too bad some of them will be just waking up to that reality a little late in the game - and, yes, they deserve a very large "I TOLD YOU SO."

Civics 101 - order of succession is to the Vice-President, then to the Speaker of the House, then to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

edit: btw that is Cheney to Hastert to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

Links?

[Dont Hurt Me]

George will be putting 2 on the court, thats almost scary with all the crap he's done. Freedom & Liberty are dead. :( I have confidence it will be business as usual.

[Sun Baked]

George will be putting 2 on the court, thats almost scary with all the crap he's done. Freedom & Liberty are dead. :( I have confidence it will be business as usual.All is not lost yet, it's not like Lance Ito is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.

If that happened, big business would probably get away with murder.

[mactastic]

Let's hope Stevens can hang on for another 3.5 years... His resignation would really put a nail in the coffin of Roe.

[Dont Hurt Me]

All is not lost yet, it's not like Lance Ito is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.

If that happened, big business would probably get away with murder.you been under a rock? Big Business has gotten away with everything. How about the grab your land and lets build a Mall. Thats Big business & Govt coming after all.

[Sun Baked]

you been under a rock? Big Business has gotten away with everything. How about the grab your land and lets build a Mall. Thats Big business & Govt coming after all.But they haven't gotten away with murder yet... remember who Lance Ito was? ;)

[Sayhey]

Links?

To what? Let me guess.

Order of Presidential Succession (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html)

or

Public Opposed to overturning "Roe" - 63% to 30% - Pew research (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=113)

[stubeeef]

To what?
this
The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with this President on a whole host of issues, including privacy rights, and yet a certain number chose to ignore the inevitable erosion of those rights under his probable appointees and voted in enough numbers to elect the idiot. It is not just the left (btw, is the "far left" everybody who is a registered Democrat or just anyone with politics to left of Joe Leiberman?) who will likely be stripped of basic rights under this new Court.

Curious, who do you think is the most liberal justice?

[Sayhey]

stu, this is not really very controversial stuff. All one had to do was follow the election last year and one knows that on issue after issue (Social Security, the Environment, Abortion rights, etc) the public tends to support what are more likely to be Democratic positions than those held by the President. I gave you a link on the question of Roe v. Wade, but if you did a little reading at the Pew research site you would find surveys like this:

Public's Agenda Differs From the President's: Bush Approval Rating Lower Than For Other Two-Termers (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=235)

The real question is why did people who disagree with Bush on all these issues vote for him last year? My answer is that Bush had a very effective campaign that played on the fears of many people, both around Terrorism and Cultural issues, and convinced enough to vote against their interests and beliefs. I'm sure we disagree.

My answer to your question is that the most consistent "liberal" voice on this Court has been Justice Stevens. At 85 years of age I just hope he can last until 2009.

[iGary]

Bush knows he won't get away with two hardline conservative nominations.

He's not THAT stoopit.

[stubeeef]

My answer to your question is that the most consistent "liberal" voice on this Court has been Justice Stevens. At 85 years of age I just hope he can last until 2009.

Was not politically active but was a registered Republican when appointed, and was appointed by a Republican president.

[Sayhey]

Was not politically active but was a registered Republican when appointed, and was appointed by a Republican president.

Yes, and your point is? Former Justice Brennan was also a Republican appointee. He wrote Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy was a Republican appointee and he wrote for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas. Do you think there is a chance in hell that Bush will appoint someone in the mold of any of the three? Not likely. He has already stated his admiration of Scalia and Thomas as models for his nominees.

I think I've made it clear I don't think this is a Republicans vs. Democrats issue. It is an issue of trying to make sure that the Court doesn't tilt to the far right under the leadership of Scalia and Thomas and as a result see the reversal of many hard fought for rights.

[IJ Reilly]

In the long-range political strategy department, I've heard some murmurings that conservatives really don't want to see Roe overturned, because it would become such a huge rallying cry for liberals. Better to have to have it nibbled away at over time. So if Bush is sensitive to this issue, he might choose someone who's views on Roe are either unclear or supportive of precedent, which would argue for a more centrist nominee. I hold out little hope for this scenario, though. If we've learned anything about this president over the past five years it's that he is mainly interested in pleasing the most ideological within his own party. He really does serve their agenda almost exclusively.

[stubeeef]

My point is; everyone knew that some justices were bound to retire this prez term. Everyone has the rhetoric and rally cries at max volume before anyone knows of a nominee. It is rediculous.
O'Connor was anti-abortion when nominated, didn't seem to overturn that! The most liberal justice sitting now was appointed by Pres Ford (R), Heck O'Connor was a Regan appointment (anyone want to call him a moderate? Golly he was the first to appoint a woman, not a democrat!)
Might as well go outside and start telling everyone to take cover from incoming comets, cause we atleast know that one is coming. It is more certain than the Armageddon Justice.

[IJ Reilly]

Then again, I don't recall any president signaling his intentions so clearly. He stated them as early as the 2000 campaign and has nominated a string of ideologically conservative judges to federal benches if only to prove his point. Granted we're all prognosticating here, but I've tried to find some reason to believe that Bush won't use this opportunity to appoint someone of a similar ilk to the Supreme Court, and could find only one. On balance I have to conclude that this one reason won't outweigh his debt to the furtherest right elements in his party. He almost can't nominate anyone who doesn't pass the right wing's strict litmus tests. They'd treat it as a betrayal to the cause, which would cost him politically later.

I would like to be wrong, and am prepared to eat my words if something else occurs. I just don't think I'll have to.

[IJ Reilly]

It begins.

Conservative Groups Rally Against Gonzales as Justice

WASHINGTON, July 2 - Within hours after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's announced retirement from the Supreme Court, members of conservative groups around the country convened in five national conference calls in which, participants said, they shared one big concern: heading off any effort by President Bush to nominate his attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, to replace her.

Late last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III met with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., to warn that appointing Mr. Gonzales would splinter conservative support.

And Paul M. Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said he had told administration officials that nominating Mr. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are considered suspect by religious conservatives, would fracture the president's conservative backers.

...

Members of Congress and conservatives close to the White House said that they were confident that Mr. Bush would use the first Supreme Court vacancy of his tenure to nominate a judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he has repeatedly promised to do.

"They don't need me lobbying on this stuff - they know what to do," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group with close ties to the White House. "My only recommendation is that they nominate someone who is 12 or 13 years old," to ensure as long a conservative legacy as possible.

...

Mr. Weyrich, while declining to disclose the specifics of a recent conversation with Ken Mehlman, the Republican Party chairman, said: "We have let the administration know through whatever channels we have that Gonzales would be an unwise appointment because of the opposition of some of the groups," some of which he said would actively oppose Mr. Gonzales, while "others like the Southern Baptists and myself would simply not help."

...

Even at a time when they have unprecedented influence in the nation's capital, many conservative leaders have become increasingly restive at their comparative lack of sway on the court and have described the selection of the next justice as the most important decision Mr. Bush will make - even if he has to force it through at the expense of his ambitious second-term agenda.

Some Republicans warned that a very conservative nomination by Mr. Bush would guarantee a protracted legislative battle that could doom any hope Mr. Bush had of pushing through a Social Security or tax reform bill.

...

The National Review said in an editorial on its Web site: "Conservatives would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment."

Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, said: "Bush was very clear, and certainly his constituents believed him, when he said he would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. We are not in favor of Gonzales." Reflecting a widely held view among conservatives, and one of the reasons for the intensity of the sentiment on the right, Mrs. Schlafly described Justice O'Connor as "a terrible disappointment."

But other conservatives said there was no reason to fear, given Mr. Bush's record of appointing conservatives as president, and noted Mr. Bush's unambiguous embrace of conservative ideals.

...

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/politicsspecial1/03scotus.html?hp&ex=1120449600&en=006c4895f8e60334&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Sayhey]

My point is; everyone knew that some justices were bound to retire this prez term. Everyone has the rhetoric and rally cries at max volume before anyone knows of a nominee. It is rediculous.
O'Connor was anti-abortion when nominated, didn't seem to overturn that! The most liberal justice sitting now was appointed by Pres Ford (R), Heck O'Connor was a Regan appointment (anyone want to call him a moderate? Golly he was the first to appoint a woman, not a democrat!)
Might as well go outside and start telling everyone to take cover from incoming comets, cause we atleast know that one is coming. It is more certain than the Armageddon Justice.

Why is the volume so high before a nominee is even chosen? Because the stakes are so high. Justice O'Connor was a swing vote on many, many issues and, as has been stated numerous times here already, Bush has made it clear he wants to nominate someone in the model of Scalia and Thomas. That would be a disaster to millions of Americans who value privacy rights, such as a right to an abortion. I can explain this to you over and over again, stu, but if your response is only "Who knows, Bush might nominate someone you like" it is missing the many facts that lead to concern on the part of, again, millions.

Second, stu, now is the time to build pressure on Bush to consult with Democrats on who the nominee is, not when a selection is already made that will polarize the country. If Bush where to go to Reid and Leahy for suggestions, maybe this could all be avoided, but I'm not optimistic. I certainly not optimistic if we all sit back and say nothing while Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson mobilize to make sure the nominee is a Scalia clone.

[IJ Reilly]

Bush is between a rock and a hard place entirely of his own creation. If he nominates anyone with even a whiff of moderation in his or her background, he'll fracture his own party. If he fails to nominate a true moderate, his legislative agenda in the Senate is all but finished, and he'll be quacking loudly from now to 2008.

All of this could very well play out against the background of a major White House scandal. I think all the beans are about to be thrown high in the air, and where they come down, nobody knows.

[ham_man]

Bush is between a rock and a hard place entirely of his own creation. If he nominates anyone with even a whiff of moderation in his or her background, he'll fracture his own party. If he fails to nominate a true moderate, his legislative agenda in the Senate is all but finished, and he'll be quacking loudly from now to 2008.

All of this could very well play out against the background of a major White House scandal. I think all the beans are about to be thrown high in the air, and where they come down, nobody knows.
For once, I actually agree with you IJ. Bush is between a rock and a hard place. What he does will impact the nation for many years to come. And like I said before, this will be very interesting to watch...

[solvs]

Bush knows he won't get away with two hardline conservative nominations.

He's not THAT stoopit.
Have you seen his candidates for other such important positions? This being something that will more than likely last beyond his Presidency, he would be wise to think moderate. But come on now, is that really the GW we've all gotten to know so well? Again, we're going by actions here. So far, based solely on previous experiance, I know I'm a little worried. You should be too IMO.

The funny thing is though, have you guys forgotton that it was O'Connor who stopped the recount in FL in 2000? The one that Gore actually won. Look how well that turned out.

[iGary]

Have you seen his candidates for other such important positions? This being something that will more than likely last beyond his Presidency, he would be wise to think moderate. But come on now, is that really the GW we've all gotten to know so well? Again, we're going by actions here. So far, based solely on previous experiance, I know I'm a little worried. You should be too IMO.

The funny thing is though, have you guys forgotton that it was O'Connor who stopped the recount in FL in 2000? The one that Gore actually won. Look how well that turned out.

Those other positions are not the Supreme Court.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you'll see Lou Sheldon being nominated. ;)

[takao]

wow i don't rember having such a discussion about the 'Verfassungsgerichtshof' over here...

seems to be a US problem...

[IJ Reilly]

For once, I actually agree with you IJ. Bush is between a rock and a hard place. What he does will impact the nation for many years to come. And like I said before, this will be very interesting to watch...

Okay, I'll take it. :cool:

Reminds me of the famous old Chinese saying about living in interesting times...

[solvs]

Those other positions are not the Supreme Court.
Exactly. This is MUCH more important. So it will have the capability of being SO much worse. I think you give the man far too much credit here, as I am basing my opinion on past trends. Look at how the UN ambassadorship thing is going. You can't tell me you actually think he's going to throw a couple of moderates up there.

I hope you're right, but I just don't see it.

[atszyman]

Just a thought. Probably insane but then again most of my thoughts are...

Could this be a test from the moderate conservatives on the SCOTUS? Concerned with the possibility of the court taking a hard partisan turn and not wanting to risk the Chief Justice position, they take the risk and allow one of the lesser judges to retire. Figuring that if a non-moderate is selected they can curb his/her effect, and Rehnquist can try to hold on for the next Congress which one would hope to be more moderate. If a moderate is selected it might open the door for Rehnquist to step down without worrying too much about where the court would go in his absence...

Probably insane or wishful thinking, maybe a little of both...

[atszyman]

Here's (http://slate.msn.com/id/2122012/fr/rss/) an interesting take on O'Connor's replacement with regards to Roe vs Wade.

I know there are other issues involved but this RvW will get the most airtime...

[feakbeak]

Just a thought. Probably insane but then again most of my thoughts are...

Could this be a test from the moderate conservatives on the SCOTUS? Concerned with the possibility of the court taking a hard partisan turn and not wanting to risk the Chief Justice position, they take the risk and allow one of the lesser judges to retire. Figuring that if a non-moderate is selected they can curb his/her effect, and Rehnquist can try to hold on for the next Congress which one would hope to be more moderate. If a moderate is selected it might open the door for Rehnquist to step down without worrying too much about where the court would go in his absence...

Probably insane or wishful thinking, maybe a little of both...It's an interesting idea, but O'Connor has been a critical justice on the Supreme Court for some time, you'd think they would have tried with another justice. Also, I'd be surprised if Rehnquist made it to the next Congress.

[mactastic]

Hmmm.... Rumor is going 'round that Rehnquist (http://capitolbuzz.blogspot.com/2005/07/rehnquist-rumors-senate-gop-predicts.html) will be making an announcement tomorrow.

If so, It could make it easier for both sides to get what they want: one strict conservative to please the Dobson crowd, and one moderate (well moderate for Bush) to please the middle-of-the-road folks.

We'll see.

[Sayhey]

Hmmm.... Rumor is going 'round that Rehnquist (http://capitolbuzz.blogspot.com/2005/07/rehnquist-rumors-senate-gop-predicts.html) will be making an announcement tomorrow.

If so, It could make it easier for both sides to get what they want: one strict conservative to please the Dobson crowd, and one moderate (well moderate for Bush) to please the middle-of-the-road folks.

We'll see.

I don't think that will satisfy Dobson and his ilk. They see this as their chance to change America back to a nostalgic vision of America before abortions were legal, gays were in the closet or jail, women stayed home to raise the children, multiculturalism meant two or more northern Europeans, and the Christian nature of our country went unquestioned.

[mactastic]

I'm sure it won't satisfy them, but that may not be Bush's top priority. He's burned the religious right before.

But you're right, a radical conservative and a moderate conservative probably won't change the court very much, and as such would be a loss to the conservatives who'd like to see two more justices in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.