O'Connor retires from US Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by tmartca, Jul 1, 2005.

Loading...
  1. tmartca

    tmartca New Member

  2. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

  3. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Yes, he just got one onto to the federal bench. Bet she's near the top of the list.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    While a minority should be a top choice, Sens. Arlen Specter or Orrin Hatch would be excellent choices.
     
  5. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    No matter who it is, the Dems will certainly oppose him/her.

    Bush could nominate Hillary, and she'd get fillibustered.
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I don't think so. Well, Hillary WOULD ge fillibustered but by the GOP!

    It's interesting to see how Justice O'Conner, a Reagan appointee, became a moderate, even occasionally liberal voice on the Court. She didn't change much, I don't think, so much as the Court shifted to the Right around her.
     
  7. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    If they did, I'd condemn them also for an unconstitutional usurpation of the appointment powers of the Executive.

    I don't agree. The Court didn't take a decided conservative shift post O'Connor. It took a conservative shift vis-a-vis the Warrent court and the early Burger court before she ever stepped in. To refer to this current court as particularly conservative in light of its abortion decisions over the last 15 or so years--in which O'Connor was often the swing vote or wrote the majority opinion--and the most recent decision on property rights belies the truth of the matter.
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    little fauss,

    Yes. You may very well be right on this.
     
  9. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    That's the second time I got a guy with a higher Martindale Hubble rating to acknoweldge my rightness (or the possibility thereof)!

    Thanks for making my soon-to-be Shabbat! :D
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Y'all think there'll be any new high-tech lynchings this go-round?
     
  11. Deb

    Deb New Member

    The property rights decision was certainly not a liberal leaning decision. No liberal I know would take property away from an individual and give it to big business.
     
  12. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    But the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court is the one that voted uniformly with the majority decision, and the conservative bloc is the one that voted with the dissent. A classical liberal--a term that describes me quite well--would never favor such a thing, but many modern-day liberals seem to have rather low regard for property rights, judging by how much they seek to take from those who own it--in taxes--and how quick they are to take it for the "common good". That phrase, of course, being defined as a liberal defines it.

    You're quite right that distributing that property to big business would seem at first blush to be more conservative, but most conservatives have a regard for property rights, being as they are, the bedrock of our capitalist system, and by extension, our Republic.

    On the whole, it's a perfectly irrational decision, and one that left and right should condemn.
     
  13. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Doesn't the Senate's constitutional powers of advice and consent include the right to advise "heck, no, Mr. Prez" and to withhold (sp?) consent?
     
  14. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    Maybe Bush could appoint A.G. Gonzales. I honestly think the poltical fight could get ugly if he appoints anyone too conservative for the Democrats because they may Filibuster.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Not a big fan of Gonzales. If Bush wants to appoint a Hispanic he should select Florida Senator Mel Martinez.
     
  16. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    Mel Martinez may be too conserative for the Democrats to appoint. Bush will need the Democrats to get anyone on the Supreme Court because they will filibuster. As I said, this could turn ugly! If the republicans decide to change the rules on judical filibusters expect the rest of this session to go no where and no legistlation to get pushed through until after the midterm elections!
     
  17. Lawhopes

    Lawhopes New Member

    I'm holding out for our own Justice Janice Brown, here on the California Supreme Court. She's been tried and found true on all our conservative principles; just think, how difficult is it to remain as conservative as she is and even get to the California Supreme Court much less stay there? And we'd have a plus- if the Dems filibustered, it would be ripe for lawsuits up the kazoo as she's a female AND black. I can just see it, suing the Senate for affirmative action and racial and gender prejudice. They wouldn't DARE filibuster her and she'd bring a balance back to Mount Olympus!!!

    Etienne
     
  18. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Oh my God! Discrimination lawsuits against the Senate on account of their Supreme Court hiring policies? And, praytell, in which court do you file that lawsuit?
     
  19. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    I'm surprised that the eminent domain decision even flew. The conservatives protested on the grounds of property rights violations. Why didn't the liberals protest the fact that some selfish rich business owner was running over the little guy?
     
  20. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Given the depressing--and predictable--ethnic tokenism practised by both parties,
    it would shock me to see nominated and approved either a (genuine) First Nations person or an Asian-American. But it would be a nice twist.
     

Share This Page