View Full Version : Sandra Day O'connor retires
Hurin_Rules
07-01-2005, 15:29
Just heard it on CNN, so i have not link yet. But they are reporting it is true.
Wow.
Things in the US are going to get very nasty. She was the swing vote on many, many issues. If a staunch conservative is chosen, I think Roe v. Wade is now in peril, and certainly many other issues arise.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 15:35
Well, things are about to get a whole lot more interesting. The Democrats have said they will not allow the current consistency (read liberal majority) to be compromised. I think this is going to be a blood bath unless whomever George Bush picks comes right out and says he believes in an absolute right to abortion right through the 9th month. Anything else, and the Democrats are going to be pushed by their Left Wing into obstructing.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does the appointment process work? I thought it was ultimately the President's perogative or could the Democrats really block it?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 15:42
THis is great news. Hey Sandy dont let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. ~:)
Forgive my ignorance, but how does the appointment process work? I thought it was ultimately the President's perogative or could the Democrats really block it?
The Democrats could block it but then again the republicans maybe able to change the rules and overide them.
Hurin_Rules
07-01-2005, 15:52
I believe the appointment process is similar to that of appellate court judges: the nominee will appear before the senate, be asked questions, and then there will be a vote; the person has to get a simple majority. However, the democrats could filibuster to block the nomination; they would only need 40 votes. So that's why it could get so nasty.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 15:56
There's a senatorial 'advise and consent' clause which is pretty vague in the Constitution. The way this has been traditionally interpreted has been that the senate would hold hearings to review a candidate's worthiness and then recommend them (or not) to the senate at large, who holds an approval vote.
There's several ways a direct vote can be sidetracked. All of them stem from the fact that unlike the House, the Senate rules (what they've all agreed to, there's nothing legally binding in them) make it hard to get things done with a simple majority. For example, the minority party can create a fillibuster (it takes a 60% vote to end discussion... if you don't want to lose a vote, don't ever let discussion end). The second way is the committe itself can refuse to end discussion on a nominee (because likewise, a minority on the committee can block the committe from closing the matter) There's also been a tradition of senators as mutually respecting aristorcrats. To that end, if an appointee's home state senator doesn't like them, he can reject them out of hand (with what's called a blue slip).
Traditionally, these tricks were not employed for partisan reasons, but more because a senator had a real axe to grind and was trying to politely tell his cohorts (I know this guy better than you do, and trust me, we don't want him). But, in the past 20 years, things have gotten much more divisive, and it's become a game of 1-upsmanship. A judicial nominee had never been rejected for their views until Robert Bork, just their capability. That started this whole mess in progress, and ever since, it's been a pissing contest over which side can screw the other over more.
Bush will nominate a replacement for O'Connor, and this nominee will more or less align with Bush's agenda. He'll go to committee, and Democrats will try to paint the guy to be an extremist. Republicans will start holding up spending bills and the committe will relent and send the nominee out for a full vote. Then the real fireworks will begin. If the nominee isn't 100% in line with the Democratic agenda (pro-abortion, pro-government oversight, pro-world government, etc) they'll have no choice but to fillibuster. This is because they'll lose their extremist support. While the extremists on either side are usually not a majority, they are the idealogues that contribute money and time during campaigns, so you can't dismiss them totally.
The Republicans have said many times if the Democrats fillibuster the Supreme Court nominee, they'll vote to change the Senate rules (which only requires a simple majority). If they do that, they'll end the fillibuster and essentially, any bipartisanship that remains. The Democrats will declare war, and they'll have to, because that will be all they'll have left until the next election. They will become as vestigal as your tail bone, with the Republicans ramrodding one agenda item after another through. By the time Nov, 2006 roles around, America will look very different.
I actually tried to be objective, but please correct me if you think I was overly favoring one-side.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 15:57
However, the democrats could filibuster to block the nomination; they would only need 40 votes. So that's why it could get so nasty.
Close. There are 100 Senators. If the dems fillibuster it would take a super majority of 60 to overide them. However if the republicans can get 50 or more senators to vote to change the rules on this matter(actually return it to what it used to be) they could get them nominated. This is the nuclear optioon you keep hearing about. The dems say if the republicans do that they would shut down the government. So you see its a win win situtation for us conservatives. I hope they shut it down. ~D
Steppe Merc
07-01-2005, 15:58
Hmm. While I have no love for any Supreme Court Justice, this will only end up having me love them even less. Great. :wall:
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-01-2005, 15:59
Hopefully Bush will nominate a conservative black woman.
Then he can say to the Dems, "Who's the racist, sexist pig now?" when they try to smear the candidate.
O'Conner is more of a flip-flopper than out-and-out liberal, right? Too bad one of thems could have gone.
EDIT: Like Ginsberg. Blah! Gah!
Forgive my ignorance, but how does the appointment process work? I thought it was ultimately the President's perogative or could the Democrats really block it?
Now this is something I should know off by heart, as it could have quite easily have come up in one of my very recent exams!
Basically the President nominates someone who they want to become a Justice - much like the appointments of diplomats etc - and then that person has to go through a series of steps before actually becoming a justice.
First is the committee phase and though the committee phase doesn't usually reject a nominee - although they can - this phase can seriously damage a candidates chances. eg. John Bolton's problems at the committee phase for the appointment of UN ambassador.
Then they have to get through a vote in the Senate. The candidate only needs a simple majority - 51 Senators - which with the Republicans having 55 doesn't seem that hard, but I believe filibustering is still allowed, so the Democrats could talk it out if they really wanted.
If the vote in the Senate is passed then they become a justice, but it is a long and hard process, especially for extreme candidates.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 16:00
O'Conner is more of a flip-flopper than out-and-out liberal, right? Too bad one of thems could have gone.
We still have 3 years to hope. ~;) And hopefully many more.
Hurin_Rules
07-01-2005, 16:02
I guess what I'm wondering is, could the democrats filibuster the bill to change the rules and end the filibuster?
I guess what I'm wondering is, could the democrats filibuster the bill to change the rules and end the filibuster?
I believe they can - silly ain't it. ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 16:06
The candidate only needs a simple majority - 51 Senators
Your only mistake. They only need 50. A tie is settled by the Vice president. Guess which way he would vote? ~:)
I believe they can - silly ain't it.
Second mistake.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 16:10
I believe they can - silly ain't it. ~D
No, they can't, because a Rules Vote isn't a Senate resolution. There's a pre-defined time limit on discussion.
Your only mistake. They only need 50. A tie is settled by the Vice president. Guess which way he would vote? ~:)
That is very true, but of course if the roles were reversed VP wise it would need 51. :p
And I honestly didn't know that they would not be able to filibuster the filibuster breaking bill! ;o
Cheers for the info though.
No, they can't, because a Rules Vote isn't a Senate resolution. There's a pre-defined time limit on discussion.
Ah I see. Cheers - I do believe you need to get rid of the stupid filibustering, we did a few years back in our second chamber.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 16:27
That is very true, but of course if the roles were reversed VP wise it would need 51. :p
And I honestly didn't know that they would not be able to filibuster the filibuster breaking bill! ;o
Cheers for the info though.
It's not a bill! That's why they can do it! If the Democrats could fillibuster the anti-fillibuster vote, it wouldn't be the nuclear option, it would be the "What was the freakin point" option ~D
Looks like we're going to get plenty of fireworks this Independence Day weekend! ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 16:31
1 down 4 to go ~D
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:11
No link yet, just heard it.
Edit: Oh, this is GOOD!
O'Connor retiring and Rehnquist soon to retire. Also, Stevens is 85 years old. And President Bush has three more years in office!
Could we get a three-fer? I hope so.
http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/markets/marketfeatures/10230662.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:16
This is going to get ugly. Filibuster on lower court noms now looking like a bad idea. Lesson: pick your battles.
Mwahaha.
(Okay, I'll quit talking to myself now.)
Hurin_Rules
07-01-2005, 17:24
Might want to see the thread I already posted on this bro.
~:cheers:
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:26
I'm a girl, but thanks and whoops. Please delete this, someone?
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:30
Oh, this is GOOD!
O'Connor retiring and Rehnquist soon to retire. Also, Stevens is 85 years old. And President Bush has three more years in office!
Could we get a three-fer? I hope so.
This is going to get ugly. Filibuster on lower court noms now looking like a bad idea. Lesson: pick your battles.
Mwahaha.
Great.
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:42
Ted Kennedy gets up on CNN and is already basically saying either Bush nominates a Liberal, or else he and the Democrats will fight it.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 17:44
I belive they saud they expect him to appoint another (cough cough) moderate like O connor or there would be trouble.
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 17:46
Yeah, 'moderate.'
The double standard of guys like him is just breathtaking. Reno gets confirmed as AG unanimously. Ginsburg gets confirmed for the SCOTUS 97-3. That's what "comity" in the Senate gets you I guess.
Don't be fooled, Mr. President. Play hardball.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 17:51
You guys are sucking seawater (as my Dad, a former merchant marine would say) if you think Bush is going to nominate a 'moderate', as Kennedy put it. Reno's not a good example of the Right taking a non-partisan bow, because she was relatively unknown, and they did go after Lanni Guineir pretty hard.
Try to stop looking at this whole process through ideological eyes for a second. Imagine it's an elaborate game. You can play for either side. If you were going to play for the Democrats, wouldn't you be getting out in front and drawing a line in the sand as fast as you possibly can? They don't have a lot going for them, they have to score as many points as they can, as early as they can, and hope to swing public opinion enough to stave off the inevitable.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 17:55
They don't have a lot going for them, they have to score as many points as they can, as early as they can, and hope to swing public opinion enough to stave off the inevitable.
Well it seems their fiighting a losing battle. Just check out the stats on Americans faith in the supreme court nowdays. Again its time you and otheres realise that were winning and that we are our own worst enemies. The base is screaming wheres the changes we put you in office for and this matter was the biggest reason for electing Bush.
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 18:02
I like intellectual honesty Don, and I usually tried to shed the demagogery before I have an honest opinion (before you call me out, you're pretty tendentious yourself, Hurin :gring: ), but conservative justices make me pretty happy (giddy) and this is a great shot.
Anyway, let's hit the mattresses and let the outrage begin.
ICantSpellDawg
07-01-2005, 18:09
id rather that the ratio was simply usually in favor of conservatives - like 5-4 with a single middle of the roader leaning slightly to the right
6 conservatives would ruin the game and create a backlash in a similar way that the activism of the court today has for the left
Ser Clegane
07-01-2005, 18:22
The two threads on this topic have been merged ~:)
Hurin_Rules
07-01-2005, 18:22
(before you call me out, you're pretty tendentious yourself, Hurin :gring: )
I object strongly to that remark... in fact, I am offended by it. I am the most level headed... uh... wait... oh yeah, you're right. Fair enough.
~:cheers:
Proletariat
07-01-2005, 18:22
I don't want someone socially conservative, per se. Just more Originalists like Scalia.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 18:23
Yup all I want is people who go by what the constitution says not what they think it should say.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 18:29
I like intellectual honesty Don, and I usually tried to shed the demagogery before I have an honest opinion (before you call me out, you're pretty tendentious yourself, Hurin :gring: ), but conservative justices make me pretty happy (giddy) and this is a great shot.
Anyway, let's hit the mattresses and let the outrage begin.
It's GO to the mattresses Prol. GO to the mattresses means total war. :charge: 'Hit the mattresses' means we're getting ready to take a nap. :sleeping: Somebody needs to rewatch the Godfather trilogy this weekend.
Don Corleone
07-01-2005, 18:32
Well it seems their fiighting a losing battle. Just check out the stats on Americans faith in the supreme court nowdays. Again its time you and otheres realise that were winning and that we are our own worst enemies. The base is screaming wheres the changes we put you in office for and this matter was the biggest reason for electing Bush.
No place, no where, no how did I mean to imply that at this very moment I am not peeing my pants with 'irrational exuberance' at the moment. :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: If you remember, I was ready to take up arms in open revolt over the property seizure ruling. But you two were starting to sound like chicken-little with "Can you believe Kennedy is already out there....?" I mean, OF COURSE HE IS!!! He's a dying duck and that's his last quack. :lipsrsealed2:
It's GO to the mattresses Prol. GO to the mattresses means total war. :charge: 'Hit the mattresses' means we're getting ready to take a nap. :sleeping: Somebody needs to rewatch the Godfather trilogy this weekend.
Maybe she was really wanting to hit the mattresses - she might need her beauty sleep before going off on the 4th of July weekend. Now there is an adult version - but since its a family forum - I will leave it to your dirty minds what the real message was.
Hopefully Bush will nominate a conservative black woman.
Then he can say to the Dems, "Who's the racist, sexist pig now?" when they try to smear the candidate.
O'Conner is more of a flip-flopper than out-and-out liberal, right? Too bad one of thems could have gone.
EDIT: Like Ginsberg. Blah! Gah!
Well, they filibustered Janice Rogers Brown.... although she would make an good SCOTUS nominee wouldnt she?
PanzerJaeger
07-01-2005, 22:47
Hopefully this will be the end of abortion on demand. ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 22:55
But you two were starting to sound like chicken-little with "Can you believe Kennedy is already out there....?" I mean, OF COURSE HE IS!!! He's a dying duck and that's his last quack.
Not really thats exactly what we expect. In fact I love him making a jerk of himself again. This is like Iraqi insurgency. They see their a dying breed and this is their last gasp. They will try anything to keep some kind of power.
Steppe Merc
07-01-2005, 22:59
Hopefully this will be the end of abortion on demand. ~:cheers:
I fear they will evauntaully outlaw abortion entirely. I know the whole Rode vs Wade thing wasn't exactly Constitutional, and I don't agree with how they did it, but abortion ought to be legal (up to three months for non dangerous cases, and only after that if the mom's life is threatened, IMO).
But if on demand, you mean say during the third trimester or something, I wouldn't disagree, though I fear it will get far worse than that if there are enough conservatives on the Court.
PanzerJaeger
07-01-2005, 23:06
Abortion should never be legal unless it can directly save the life of the mother.
This 3 weeks/3 months/40 days game has been played for years. Nobody can accurately say when a fetus becomes a person.
Those 40 million lives that have been taken were American citizens who had the rights we all share.. or should have had those rights.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 23:07
I fear they will evauntaully outlaw abortion entirely. I know the whole Rode vs Wade thing wasn't exactly Constitutional, and I don't agree with how they did it, but abortion ought to be legal (up to three months for non dangerous cases, and only after that if the mom's life is threatened, IMO).
No one is calling for that. It should be up to the state as it was in the past. You know just like the marriage laws .
But if on demand, you mean say during the third trimester or something, I wouldn't disagree, though I fear it will get far worse than that if there are enough conservatives on the Court.
Again conservative believe its a states rights issue. I dont know of any of us who would back a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. Wll theres Nav I guess.
Steppe Merc
07-01-2005, 23:10
Tell that to PJ... ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
07-01-2005, 23:16
Tell that to PJ...
Look I despise abortion as much as anyone and that includes PJ but I dont think even he would back a constitutional ban on all abortions. But then Ill leave that up to him to answer.
PanzerJaeger
07-01-2005, 23:19
Well I think the original topic of this thread is interesting enough without a diversion to an abortion debate.. I started it so I'll finish it.. ~:cheers:
ICantSpellDawg
07-01-2005, 23:47
all abortions should never be banned - but - like murder - should only be allowed in the msot serious of cased
when a mother's life is threatened
an outright BAN would be absurd and would leave no room for real life saving medecine. this isnt an abortion debate, but that is what i think and have thought (through extreme conscideration) since i was a child
Steppe Merc
07-01-2005, 23:56
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into an abortion thing. Though I admit, my main fear about the evantualality of one of the... well not Republican, shall we say, judges resigning is the whole abortion thing.
But I digress. :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-02-2005, 02:01
yopu cant be blamed . Thats what the pro choice people would have you believe while the hard core pro life people would want a ban on all abortions. But believe me they are such a small minority that they have no power. Both sides here are being manipulted by the radicals. It was a lot harder for them when they had to deal with 50 differnt legislatures.
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe - so he sidetracked, brilliant. ~D
Anyway back to topic. I am amazed that people here would like to see their centrist balance in the SC - which although all you Conservatives state the opposite IS the case when you look at the voting - replaced by a partisan appointment. Surely there needs to be a balance in terms of left and right of the political spectrum so that generally speaking the centrist view is more often than not taken - which will not only save alienation on issues in such a newly split country politically but also mean a way forward which is not disastrous, as the central view rarely is.
Your latest post for instance Gawain, proves this point.
So, does this mean all you conservatives are back in favor of judicial review again?
Don Corleone
07-02-2005, 05:32
OF COURSE NOT I do not want judges mandating what I favor into law any more than I want judges mandating what I do not favor into law. I want them to return to their constitutionally defensible role.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-02-2005, 05:49
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe
He said just what I thought he would and its the same thing I think. He backed up my claim.
Abortion should never be legal unless it can directly save the life of the mother.
Unless my comprehension of english is failing me that means hes not in favor of making ALL abortions illegal. The diffence is Im willing to compromise my values a bit more than he in the interest of getting the ball rolling back in the right direction.
So, does this mean all you conservatives are back in favor of judicial review again?
What makes you say that?
PanzerJaeger
07-02-2005, 06:25
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe - so he sidetracked, brilliant.
To be honest, if there was a constitutional ban on abortion, i most likely would through all the support I could behind it. I am not a woman, a parent, or religious but for some reason that issue has always been important to me.
The reason I chose not to debate Gawain, besides the fact that he is Rush Limbaugh, is that he is exactly right.
My opinion is based solely in emotion, whereas his is based on constitutional principal and facts.
It might be hard to understand that I would support a ban even though I believe it isnt what should be done, but thats what happens when you become emotionally involved in a political issue - call it fundamentalism, radicalism, or whatever.
(Oh, and Ive learned over the years its never, ever, a good idea to debate Gawain. Its about as useful as the Polish army circa 1939. ~D )
Steppe Merc
07-02-2005, 23:47
But you get to look nice and pretty on your horse with your lance while you lose, however. ~;)
Is this scrabbling to appoint a party friendly judge not why the SC has lost its credibility in recent years? It is supposed to be apolitical is it not?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 01:31
However according to the criteria given she will still suffer a down-grading at college for writing God rather than god.
Again Bush isnt picking judges along party lines but on how they read the constitution. He and we want judges who go by what the constitution says not what some judge would have it morph into. If you want to change it put the matter before the people and let them vote as the constitution says.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.