Justice O'Connor Retiring 1157
rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."
Which way? (Score:1, Interesting)
About time. (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the Worst Judges (Score:1, Interesting)
"O'Connor should be remembered as one of the worst contributors to American jurisprudence in recent history. She was notorious as a "swing vote," equally maddening to Left and Right at various times. But she consistently held one of the most expansionist views of judicial power, committed always to the most capacious version of the Court's authority over American life. A few years ago I told my students my "O'Connor rule" for saving oneself a lot of trouble: If the Court has declared anything unconstitutional, and the vote was 5-4, and the fifth vote was provided by O'Connor, the case was wrongly decided. Reading the opinions is necessary only to confirm that judgment." [nationalreview.com]
Crow T. Trollbot
Re:Which way? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we probably need to talk about a new Amendment to the Constitution to protect property rights the way the 5th Amendment was supposed to, according to anybody who gives a fuck about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Although she was a Reagan appointee, she's generally regarded as a "swing" vote on a lot of the high-visibility social issues. A lot of 5-4 decisions over the years came down to 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Sandra Day O'Connor breaking the tie one way or the other.
Disclaimer: IANAUSSCJ (I Am Not A United States Supreme Court Justice)
Re:Which way? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:With a bit of luck..... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the same tactic as repeating the phrase "Liberal Media bias" over and over and hope that people start to believe it. The sad thing is that it works and we see a gradual shifting of the media from the center to the right to compensate for this percieved imbalance. The whole position that the media is liberal and activist is rediculous when you realize that they're just parroting GOP talking points and prepackaged news reports without even offering countering views so much of the time.
Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection (Score:2, Interesting)
Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote [washingtonpost.com] - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.
Damn that Ted Kennedy!
This is the WORST time for a justice to retire (Score:3, Interesting)
If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked. Because I don't think the Senate will take anyone the RIAA is against, someone who is pro-people, someone who is anti big buisness. Bush pused to do away with the 40 hour work week, by killing overtime pay. I can just imagine what the future holds- the 6 day work week, 9 hours a day. I am suprised buisnesses have not started selling advertising space in their offices. I can just see an spreadsheet open on the bottom 3/4ths of a monitor, with an advertisment on the top 1/4th.
Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire (Score:5, Interesting)
Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President. Things like Free Speech, etc, are fairly clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights, no amount of RIAA politicing will CHANGE the bill of rights. Its just a matter of getting the right cases to the Supreme Court so that they can smack down laws that are in violation of those rights. The reason many things like the DMCA survive is because nobody will challenge them to the degree neccessary to get them to the Supreme Court. This I think speaks more for the legal system as a whole, that allows people with deep pockets to intimidate people who are in the right, according to the constitution.
Re:VACANCY (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, this memo [msnbc.com] was written by hispanic Albert Gonzales! The choice bits: "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
That certainly would look good under Supreme Court letterhead, wouldn't it!
Fundamentalism == Doubt is Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN [hamline.deu], the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.
The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's [slashdot.org] perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.
Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.
Re:Public ConServants (Score:2, Interesting)
Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life, which isn't conservative at all in the original sense of *that* word. Hey, I can't help thinking this way, I'm a linguistic fundamentalist! (Although the ice cream thing sounds good, too.)
Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important? (Score:3, Interesting)
By definition, the Supreme Court is filling in the gaps where the law isn't clear. If there was a clear cut way to decide the case, it would have been.
It's a misunderstanding to think of the Supreme Court as the "Championship" level of the Legal System. You don't get to appeal because you lost a case. Your appeal has to either prove an error on the part of the proceedings, or some novel question of law. SCOTUS acts like that wizened old Engineer whose been around since the start of the project, and elaborates on details that elude all the lower levels of problem solvers.
Re:O'Connor's impact (Score:1, Interesting)
Do you know if there is a list of Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more liberal jsutice were sitting in O'Connor's seat? That would be interesting too.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because neo-cons evolved from right-wingers doesn't mean that they're not communist. A state-backed and state-helped "private" corporation is no better than a state-run industry. If "private" corporations can use eminent domain - a power of the state - then aren't the state and the corporations the same thing - a feature of a Communist government?
Re:Public ConServants (Score:3, Interesting)
The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.
By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.
Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.
To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.
Re:Public ConServants (Score:3, Interesting)
Example 1: The death penalty for minors. Where in the Constitution does it say that the death penalty can't be used on minors? It's a perfect example of something that should be left up to the states. As justification, the majority in that decision used international laws (wtf?) and some kind of "evolving standards". That is not rule of law, that is rule of man (or woman, in this case).
Example 2: Roe v. Wade. Let me say that I believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. However, I am against the decision for two reasons: first, it should be up to the states, and second, if it is national law, why not let the legislature make the law? The Constitution does not state anywhere that abortion is illegal. 5 judges of 9 decided that for the whole nation. If it should be a right, try to get an Amendment passed. Otherwise, it's up to the states (or at least the legislature).
We live in a nation where the rule of law should apply. You should know in advance whether you're breaking the law or not, in plain english. Even 4 Supreme Court justices don't know that you're breaking the law? That's the abysmal state of our legal system right now. In reality, they fabricate the law where it doesn't exist, and interpret the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of what it says because of a chain of precendents each using odd reasoning and ignoring the implications.
You can give me a million good reasons why it's a good idea to require registration and waiting periods for guns, and to impose all kinds of restrictions on the sale, transportation, manufacture, and so forth. But it's all unconstitutional, plain as day. The 2nd Amendment does't say "the right of the militia" it says "the right of the people". It's unqualified permission for any person in the United States to keep and bear arms. Of course responsibility comes with that, and if you are threatening people, you go to jail, where you lose all kinds of rights. But the Supreme Court is too smart and clever to read the simple sentence, they use all kinds of strange logical constructs and legal BS to ignore the text.
Now we have stupid rulings where it's legal to have the 10 Commandments in Texas but not in Kentucky. One place it's Constitutional and the other place not? I hear all kinds of political BS every day, and all of it is "protected speech" (even if paid for by the taxpayers), but if someone gives it the magical label "religious" it is now "unconstitutional speech". What deserves the label "religious" vs. something else? Judges, primarily.
In other words, we live in a land ruled by man, not law.
The Political Circus gets Better (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Hillary becomes the next President, and Bill becomes Secretary General of the UN.
Congress remains Republican.
And the great game continues.