O'Connor resigns

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and the key swing vote in some of the nation's highest-profile cases, announced her resignation Friday.

 

In a letter to the White House, the moderate conservative, said she will step down when her successor is confirmed.

 

President Bush said O'Connor was well respected.

 

"Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity," Bush said. "Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country."

 

O'Connor's move did not come as a big surprise to court watchers and portends a tremendous political battle. Already, conservative and liberal groups have been pushing the White House to fill a potential vacancy with someone who leans toward their points of view.

 

O'Connor, 75, was appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and is considered a moderate conservative on the high court and often cast the pivotal swing vote in important cases. (Profile)

 

O'Connor has dismissed the swing vote label, telling CNN recently, "That's something the media has devised as a means of writing about the court, and I don't think that has a lot of validity."

 

The list of cases in which her vote made the difference is long and notable: limiting affirmative action (Adarand 1995 case requiring "compelling" government interest), permitting public aid and vouchers to religious and parochial schools (Agostini and 2002 Zelman/Cleveland cases), and in several abortion-related cases, where a woman's reproductive rights were narrowly re-affirmed (Casey, Cathcart cases).

 

A brief statement from O'Connor said she needs to spend more time with her husband.

 

Her husband of more than 50 years, John J. O'Connor, has been suffering from early stages of Alzheimer's

 

This is the first Supreme Court vacancy since 1994, when President Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who easily won confirmation.

 

The White House said President Bush was told Thursday about a resignation, but did not find out until Friday it was O'Connor who was stepping down. He spoke by phone with O'Connor for about five minutes.

 

Everyone hold onto your ears, the partisan rancor in Washington is going to reach it's highest pitch yet.

[Justice 0]

For real.

 

And if I may say so: Final-fucking-ly. If anyone else could be resigning right now, it'd have to be Kennedy or another of those swing judges that got stuff like this last SC decision passed. I honestly hate Kennedy and O'Conner because they always seem to be the deciding factor in some of the dumbest shit in history and always seem to come out on the wrong side of it all.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Wel, here we go.

 

This is what the evangelicals put Bush back into the white house for, so they can get their supreme court candidate to push the vote on certain key issues the other way.

 

If Rehnquist also leaves, it'll be the double whammy.

 

strategy-wise, I'd say the smart move is to put an agreeable moderate in now, and use that as ammunition to put the right winger he wants for when Rehnquist leaves (if he is, i dont really know the details on that, cuz i'm lazy).

 

Its interesting, cause if he goes right from center, the left will kick up a storm, but if he goes towards the center, the religious right will kick up a storm. Or maybe he flips it, makes his big stand now, and then suddenly puts in a really moderate (read: rational) guy when Rehnquist leaves.

[SuperJerk 0]

Assuming Bush appoints an abortion opponent to replace O'Connor, the Court will be split 5-4.

 

The 4 pro-lifers on the Court would be Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and the new justice.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I honestly hate Kennedy and O'Conner because they always seem to be the deciding factor in some of the dumbest shit in history and always seem to come out on the wrong side of it all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To the contrary, I expect 5-4 decisions to be Insane Rulings From Hell. I hope everyone is excited about seeing the way we never were, as was pictured by the 1950s, because that could be our next stop.

 

If Rehnquist also leaves, it'll be the double whammy.

 

strategy-wise, I'd say the smart move is to put an agreeable moderate in now, and use that as ammunition to put the right winger he wants for when Rehnquist leaves (if he is, i dont really know the details on that, cuz i'm lazy).

 

Its interesting, cause if he goes right from center, the left will kick up a storm, but if he goes towards the center, the religious right will kick up a storm. Or maybe he flips it, makes his big stand now, and then suddenly puts in a really moderate (read: rational) guy when Rehnquist leaves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rehnquist's retirement would have meant swapping conservatives, and the balance of the court would remain intact. That's not what idealogues are interested in doing when they run every office in the Capitol, though.

 

Don't underestimate the possibility that some people are masturbating about: That Bush will put conservatives in both spots. The Democrats will complain and try to filibuster, the Republicans will use the nuclear option, and a social conservative agenda will be enacted in America for the next 20 years.

 

I think it's a low possibility that could happen, although the more short-sighted Congressional Republicans would be ecstatic about it because it gives them an excuse to end the filibuster as well and take care of two birds with one stone.

 

And to be a nice guy about the situation, I hear Alberto Gonzales' name tossed around quite a bit, and I think he'd be decent considering the circumstances. People's eyebrows arched up a bit about the torture thing, but it was technically true and he was doing his job by saying it. Didn't mean he agreed with it.

 

Just no fundies, please.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

agrees with the above post, and well, the liberal justices sure made themselves look reallly good with the Kelo decision;

 

me thinks they shot themselves in the foot

[Brett Favre 0]

I thought that said Conan for a sec. Phew.

[SuperJerk 0]

I thought that said Conan for a sec. Phew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Conan retired from being a Destroyer, but is intent to remain a Barbarian for as long as possible.

[Brett Favre 0]

I meant Conan O'Brien. That's far more important.

[SuperJerk 0]

People really can't tell when I'm kidding, can they?

[MrRant 0]

We can.

 

You just aren't good at it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Would you know I was kidding if I told you to kiss my ass?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Does "legislating from the bench"=judicial activism?

 

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

 

 

Thomas 65.63 %

Kennedy 64.06 %

Scalia 56.25 %

Rehnquist 46.88 %

O'Connor 46.77 %

Souter 42.19 %

Stevens 39.34 %

Ginsburg 39.06 %

Breyer 28.13 %

 

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

 

From NYT Op-Ed (Gerwitz/Golder)

[Justice 0]

Smitty, Judicial activism is a buzzword more than anything else, but I'd say that it's not about striking down laws as it is making up parts of the Constitution (i.e. Abortion, Right to Privacy as we know it, etc...). It more applies to the idea of 'reading between the lines' when it comes to the Constitution and etc, etc. It's all really meaningless, since you can find ways to call anything activist.

 

For example, what about law that is something new (Ala the Kelo decision that we've all be complaining about)? Isn't included in this. What if the other side simply supported more laws, becoming activist in that way?

 

Simply striking down laws doesn't tell us anything of whether they were actually adhering to anything Constitutional. It's just the Times being the Times, and little more. But interesting statistics.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The definition that I received for judicial activism in my class on constitutional law was something along the lines of "when a judge institutes his/her own policy preferences over that of the legislature".

 

I think Jon Stewart put it best--an activist judge is one who makes decisions that you disagree with.

 

For example, what about law that is something new (Ala the Kelo decision that we've all be complaining about)? Isn't included in this. What if the other side simply supported more laws, becoming activist in that way?

 

I have no idea what you're saying here.

 

Simply striking down laws doesn't tell us anything

 

It seems to me that striking down laws less would indicate more restraint.

 

Conservative groups are the ones who complain that judges undermine the will of the populace or whatever.

[Justice 0]

What I'm saying is this:

 

My definition for Judicial Activism (At least the one I was taught) was making up new uses and expanding the Constitution with language that just isn't there. I think you are describing more the Superlegislature effect, which isn't exactly Activism (Unless you want it to be *Whrugs*). Abortion, Right to Privacy, and a few others are examples of this. Just because you uphold more laws doesn't mean you are less activist. It's all dependent on your view of the Constitution and your idea of how it should be expressed. It's activist to uphold an Abortion Law to some because, well, that's not something in the Constitution. It's activist to another to strike down an AA law because it was the will of the people (Which isn't exactly true: Cases of legislative disconnect aren't uncommon, an example being the current Flag Amendment in the Senate). So Judicial Activism isn't one strict thing, it's just a buzz word that gets tossed out to describe something you don't like.

 

Consider this, Big: How are those statistics derived, and what cases are the ones overturned? How many of them are laws out of California, how many of them are laws out of Texas, which are certainly not good indicators of the US as a whole's will?

 

Statistics without context or background are the worst liars there are. Not calling you one, Smitty, but this is pretty much crap. Someone's only an activist through a view of the Constitution, not a statistic.

 

Edit: Just to note in the article, Congressional Legislation isn't the only legislation that can be brought to the attention of the court. More often than not, it's a state law that violates some Constitutional Protection.

Edited July 9, 2005 by Justice

[SuperJerk 0]

My definition for Judicial Activism (At least the one I was taught) was making up new uses and expanding the Constitution with language that just isn't there. I think you are describing more the Superlegislature effect, which isn't exactly Activism (Unless you want it to be *Whrugs*). Abortion, Right to Privacy, and a few others are examples of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 9th Amendment says:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.

[Justice 0]

My definition for Judicial Activism (At least the one I was taught) was making up new uses and expanding the Constitution with language that just isn't there. I think you are describing more the Superlegislature effect, which isn't exactly Activism (Unless you want it to be *Whrugs*). Abortion, Right to Privacy, and a few others are examples of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 9th Amendment says:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That doesn't mean it's a right, though. It doesn't make Abortion any more of a misuse of Judicial power because it is truly a state-rights issue. If one interprets the 9th Amendment along those lines, anything can be interpreted as a right because while it's not mentioned, it doesn't mean it's not covered.

 

The 9th Amendment isn't a catch-all be-all for everything. Understandable for an honest Right to Privacy (Unlike the bastardized monstrosity that we have at the moment which covers anything and everything for whatever reason someone wants), but rights aren't meant to be used on changing social factors and such.

 

Abortion is not an 'inalienable right'. Not even close. A right to privacy, properly restrained and defined, is, but not as it is right now. Making up rights out of nowhere and trying to cite the 9th is a last resort for those without a Constitutional leg to stand on.

[SuperJerk 0]

Abortion is a protected right as part of the right to privacy.

 

A woman's right to privacy, and the right to control her own body, is more important than a state government's "right" to decide when life begins.

 

If I was worried about the state government overstepping its boundaries, I'd be more worried about the state legislators deciding they are the supreme experts in both biology and theology, and know better than a pregnant woman and her doctor when life actually begins.

 

It is the state which is inventing powers for itself by telling a pregnant woman what she can't do with her reproductive organs, not the Court by telling the state not to.

[Justice 0]

Abortion is a protected right as part of the right to privacy. 

 

Uh... it's a stretch of a stretch, considering the Right to Privacy is barely a right.

 

A woman's right to privacy, and the right to control her own body, is more important than a state government's "right" to decide  when life begins.

 

Bull. Shit. You don't have a right to privacy when it comes at the risk of another being. You're rights do not overrule someone else's. You can't prove that a fetus is not a life. Hell, you'd have trouble proving that Abortion comes under the right to Privacy considering it could easily come under 'Public Welfare'.

 

This is exactly why the Right to Privacy is absolute bullshit at the moment.

 

If I was worried about the state government overstepping its boundaries, I'd be more worried about the state legislators deciding they are the supreme experts in both biology and theology, and know better than a pregnant woman and her doctor when life actually begins.

 

So suddenly the woman is a supreme expert in both biology and theology. The doctor isn't even qualified to say 'this isn't alive', even. No one is. How can it be a right when there's the very real possibility that it's infringing on someone else's rights?

 

Oh, and 'Public Welfare' is easily under that. The state is allowed to regulate medical practices because they are integral to the safety and welfare of the general public. Otherwise, under your above reasoning, we couldn't have health and medical standards for hospitals because 'who are legislatures to judge a hospital is safe or not'.

 

Whether or not you like it, there is a right to life. Thusly, you can't have a 'Right to Abortion' because it can only exist if that right to life is ignored.

 

It is the state which is inventing powers for itself by telling a pregnant woman what she can't do with her reproductive organs, not the Court by telling the state not to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh, no, the State is protecting a life that can't protect itself. It's just as it should be. You can't invent powers to give you better rights than someone else just because it suits you better.

 

Your failure is that you think it's just about reproductive organs, when it's really about the question of life and how we can't put a concrete right on top of something so nebulous and everchanging.

[SuperJerk 0]

Making up rights out of nowhere and trying to cite the 9th is a last resort for those without a Constitutional leg to stand on.

 

You're acting as if the Supreme Court just woke up one day and decided that abortion should be a new right. A case was made that it should be a right, and the court agreed.

 

And they ARE allowed to do this because of the 9th Amendment (a point which gets overlooked when people WRONGLY say the only rights we have are the ones already listed in the Constitution).

 

 

You can't prove that a fetus is not a life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And YOU can't prove that it is.

 

Stalemate.

 

That's why the woman who is actually pregnant should get the final say.

[Justice 0]

You can't prove that a fetus is not a life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And YOU can't prove that it is.

 

Sure I can. It comes out alive. Why should I think it was any different before it came out?

 

Prove to me that it isn't alive in the mother, and then you have an argument. Or better yet, tell me when it becomes alive, the exact moment that life is achieved.

 

Stalemate.

 

No, you just don't know what the hell you are talking about besides the lame teenage argument of 'it's her organs!'

 

That's why the woman who is actually pregnant should get the final say.

 

She had the final say in having sex. Having sex is a biological action for having a child. If that's not a choice to have a child, I don't know what is. By having sex, you consent to having a child. It's purely scientific: That's what sex is meant for. Those who want to get out of that responsibility are willing to eschew someone else's life for that.

 

At any rate, it's not your decision whether or someone else's life begins or ends. It's the State's, and they are there to protect those who don't have a voice. It's not your choice, it's the State's, which is why it's not an individual right and instead a State right.

 

You're acting as if the Supreme Court just woke up one day and decided that abortion should be a new right.  A case was made that it should be a right, and the court agreed.

 

No, they did just one day say it was a right. This wasn't an ongoing process, it was a decision for one case, one day. And hell, it was a very, very loose right based on fucking trimesters. You can't base immutable law on changing medical technology and terminology.

 

Not only that, but if you look at more recent court cases, the 'Right' to Abortion has been constantly overruled over and over again, and it's only one court case away from blinking out of existance. I say O'Connor was stupid because she, in PP of SP vs. Casey, basically defended Abortion not on the idea that it was a right, but that they had to uphold precedent.

 

They basically said that Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, that the decision was wrong, and that Abortion wasn't an actual right, but they had to uphold this due to precedent. Hell, they reject the trimester framework, which was basically everything Roe was based around.

 

Renquist took them to school on this, and rightfully so, as 'upholding precedent' is not a justification for upholding something that you've recognized as a wrong decision. It was dumb as hell, and please try reading case law before you make foolish claims like the one above.

 

And they ARE allowed to do this because of the 9th Amendment (a point which gets overlooked when people WRONGLY say the only rights we have are the ones already listed in the Constitution).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, they aren't. They are allowed to do this because 5 Judges said so. Please, get it right.

 

The 9th Amendment is something that deals with federal rights. 'Public Welfare' is a State's right. Abortion falls under State's Rights, thusly using this 9th Amendment as a catch-all be-all is wrong and just purports this idiotic idea that 'just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right'. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not a proven right, and can be modified.

 

All in all, the 9th Amendment is doubly useless in your argument, because it doesn't protect abortion, nor does it even include abortion in it's span.

Edited July 10, 2005 by Justice

[The Robfather 0]

The NYT Op-Ed is misleading. I wouldn't describe a juctice who has a law struck down a judicial activist based on that alone. When a justice does not adhere to the Construction in his or her rulings, that is when they are abusing their powers.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

it's not your decision whether or someone else's life begins or ends. It's the State's

HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA.

 

Okay, ideally, we'd all be able to come to an agreement about what is and isn't life, but it's clear that time and time again we aren't able to. If you leave this interest to the state, however, it will judge in whatever way most pleases, not you, but the state. And we'd still have Terri Schiavo's shit filling up our screen.

 

Like the saying goes, "The Republicans want to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body. The Democrats want to tell you what you can and can't do with everything else BUT your own body."

[Justice 0]

Well, it's true. The whole bullshit about Terry Schiavo would have been instantly stopped by a Living Will. It is the State's job to protect those who can not defend or speak for themselves. That goes for fetus's. People need to realize that the State really isn't allowed to let someone else say 'Yeah... yeah, they don't want this." :-\

[SuperJerk 0]

Prove to me that it isn't alive in the mother, and then you have an argument. Or better yet, tell me when it becomes alive, the exact moment that life is achieved.

 

When my wife had a miscarriage after being 6 weeks pregnant, I saw what came out of her. It wasn't a human being. It was a mass of tissue.

 

I don't know when life begins.

 

And neither do you.

 

No, you don't.

 

No, you just don't know what the hell you are talking about besides the lame teenage argument of 'it's her organs!'

 

But they *are* her organs.

 

WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

She had the final say in having sex. Having sex is a biological action for having a child.

 

You don't get laid much, do you?

 

 

At any rate, it's not your decision whether or someone else's life begins or ends. It's the State's

 

You're funny.

 

And here all this time I thought the conservatives thought the government was assuming too much power.

 

Please show me in any constitution (state or federal) where it says the state should be deciding when life begins, Mr. Strict Constructionist.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It is the State's job to protect those who can not defend or speak for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AW GAWD MY BRANE HURTZ. Everything that doesn't have the ability to declare it's intentions for life and death is protected by the state? Great, now I'm going to have to deal with the state when I want to put my cat to sleep. And don't tell me something like that won't come up, because that kind of strict unconditional "in all cases" law is the kind of thing that's an easy target for those who want to abuse, exploit, and expand powers.

 

I see it exactly as I do animals, actually. I accept it but only when it's done as humanely as possible. That's why I don't support PBAs, nor do I support taking Yeller out back and blasting him with the shotgun.

 

In the case of abortions, when it's too late in the pregnancy to go with the humane method, that's when I say "You fucked up, now you'll pay the price."

[Justice 0]

When my wife had a miscarriage after being 6 weeks pregnant, I saw what came out of her.  It wasn't a human being.  It was a mass of tissue.

 

I don't know when life begins. 

 

And neither do you.

 

No, you don't.

 

Exactly. How can you form a right around something that very well could be endangering someone's right to life? It's moronic. You can't form a right around something that is that subjective and unknown.

 

But they *are* her organs.

 

Uh, the fetus's organs are their owns.

 

WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

Why can't you understand that the entire argument isn't about 'your organs', it's about the possibility of a life being inside you and whether or not it's the state's duty to protect that life?

 

Lemme state this again: You can't overrule someone else's rights with your own. Your 'right' to privacy, or her 'organs' does not overrule the right to someone else's life. Thusly, you can't have a 'constitutional right' based around something that intrinsically steps on someone else's rights.

 

You don't get laid much, do you?

 

I get laid, I just make sure I minimize risk. I know people who have told me how brutal that decision is, and personally I wouldn't want to put someone through that.

 

You're funny.

 

And your dumb. What's new?

 

And here all this time I thought the conservatives thought the government was assuming too much power.

 

If you've read the Kelo decision, then you'd agree.

 

Please show me in any constitution (state or federal) where it says the state should be deciding when life begins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tenth Amendment grants police powers to the State, of which include health and other such things that fall under the idea of 'the General Welfare'. It's why states can hold hospitals to health standards among other things. The State dictates what is safe and what should be restricted, thusly abortion would fall under their control and protection.

 

Not only this, but Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) basically states that one person can not say another wants to die without 'clear and convincing evidence' that that's what the person wants. It basically protects the State's protection of life if they see it, and gives them the power to strictly regulate anything like this as they see fit. It completely dismisses any privacy claims to such a decision on someone else's life. (Which is why people need to fill out Living Wills when they can to prevent this stuff from happening).

 

Not only that, but in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court upheld a Missouri State Law that said 'life begins at conception', and that there is no Constitutional infringment in doing so.

 

So, once again, you have no constitutional leg to stand on, idiot. The 9th Amendment isn't important here, the 10th Amendment is. It grants this right to regulation specifically to states, and thusly you can't argue that it's somehow covered in the ambiguity of the 9th.

 

It's a State's Issue more than anything else, and it's certainly not an individual rights issue. It's under the 'general welfare' of the people, and unless you can find a way to wrangle that in under Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it's not a Federal issue. It should be kept to the States, who can decide for themselves which is best.

[Justice 0]

It is the State's job to protect those who can not defend or speak for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AW GAWD MY BRANE HURTZ. Everything that doesn't have the ability to declare it's intentions for life and death is protected by the state? Great, now I'm going to have to deal with the state when I want to put my cat to sleep. And don't tell me something like that won't come up, because that kind of strict unconditional "in all cases" law is the kind of thing that's an easy target for those who want to abuse, exploit, and expand powers.

 

I see it exactly as I do animals, actually. I accept it but only when it's done as humanely as possible. That's why I don't support PBAs, nor do I support taking Yeller out back and blasting him with the shotgun.

 

In the case of abortions, when it's too late in the pregnancy to go with the humane method, that's when I say "You fucked up, now you'll pay the price."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jobber: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). It basically says there is no 'right to die'. Whether you want to believe that or not, that's their take on the subject, which is why you should take the 15 minutes out of your life to fill out a Living Will. Hell, I have a copy in one of my law textbooks. You want me to scan and send it to you?

 

My main argument, if it isn't clear (Which is possible), is that whether or not you are for or against abortion, it is hardly a fundamental Constitutional Right. The case law simply doesn't support that sort of conclusion, and because this is an ever-changing debate that has little in the way of actual Constitutionality, it should be handled by states instead.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Justice

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Not only that, but in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court upheld a Missouri State Law that said 'life begins at conception', and that there is no Constitutional infringment in doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. So it really doesn't have to be true to be made law. And that, I think, is where a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies about letting states decide possible life and death matters. Or government at all, but at least the higher governments appeal to a larger variety of constituents.