Sandra Day O'connor retires

[Hurin_Rules]

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]

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.

[econ21]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

Hmm. While I have no love for any Supreme Court Justice, this will only end up having me love them even less. Great.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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!

[JAG]

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]

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]

I guess what I'm wondering is, could the democrats filibuster the bill to change the rules and end the filibuster?

[JAG]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

I believe they can - silly ain't it.

No, they can't, because a Rules Vote isn't a Senate resolution. There's a pre-defined time limit on discussion.

[JAG]

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.

[JAG]

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]

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

Looks like we're going to get plenty of fireworks this Independence Day weekend!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1 down 4 to go

[Proletariat]

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/ma...FREE&cm_ite=NA

[Proletariat]

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]

Might want to see the thread I already posted on this bro.

[Proletariat]

I'm a girl, but thanks and whoops. Please delete this, someone?

[Proletariat]

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]

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]

I belive they saud they expect him to appoint another (cough cough) moderate like O connor or there would be trouble.

[Proletariat]

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]

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]

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]

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 ), 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.