It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor steps down

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I don't know if this is the right forum/board for this breaking story...


Sandra Day O'Connor has just announced that she will be stepping down from the Supreme Court.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


"O’Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court’s next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O’Connor.
It’s been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O’Connor’s decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice."

[edit on 1-7-2005 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 1-7-2005 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 1-7-2005 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 1-7-2005 by onlyinmydreams]




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
YIKE!!

Even more troubling is that the Republicans want to appoint a POLITICIAN to the Supreme Court. Dear heavens. Yeah, it has been done before, but I want good laws...not the Politics of the Moment.

No women in the potential Republican lineup, either.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
More info:

www.cbsnews.com...

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement Friday after 24 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. O'Connor, 75, considered a crucial swing vote on the divided court, was the first female justice in Supreme Court history.
Her departure could lead to a bruising confirmation fight for the person President Bush nominates to replace her.
O'Connor's surprise announcement came amid widespread speculation that ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist would step down. The 80-year-old Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and was absent from the bench during much of the court's just-completed session."

This will, indeed, lead to the biggest political battle in years, as both parties, now, have had political strategies in place that are aimed at selecting the nature of the high court (strategies that, to be frank, I think are necessary considering the growth in power the supreme court has experienced in recent decades).

In short, each party knows that winning the legislature or presidency is only a temporary victory... as the supreme court often overturns laws that were passed by congress or approved by popular majority. Influencing the court is the only way to make permanent changes to american society.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by onlyinmydreams]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is really strange.

The Heritage Foundation sent an internal e-mail yesterday that O'Conner was retiring creating a huge internet frenzy.

But it turned out to be this one.

O'Conner To Retire As State Attorney


Baltimore County Prosecutor to Retire

Associated Press
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; 11:12 AM

TOWSON -- Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County's state's attorney for more than three decades, has said she will retire, her office said Wednesday.

A Republican, O'Connor said she would retire in December 2006 when her eighth term ends, according to a release from Baltimore County State's Attorney's office.


Now the real one does shortly thereafter.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
AP's got it and so does ATSNN


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7/1/05 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Non-American resident waving her hand and asking a question..

Why are these appointments for life?

If they're to be lifetime appointments, why isn't it the public who are voting for the nominees?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
This is really strange.

The Heritage Foundation sent an internal e-mail yesterday that O'Conner was retiring creating a huge internet frenzy.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by RANT]


That's pretty bizarre.

Man, this is going to be the biggest battle in years. If you guys thought Clarence Thomas was a big deal....


Both parties know that we live in an era where the court makes the 'big decision' at the end of the day... and so each party is now designed around a supreme court strategy (wherein the goal is to place people on the court and winning legislative votes is just a stepping stone for that). This upcoming confirmation process will be the first time we'll all get to see how the system holds up in an era where everyone is just put in place for a court nomination battle.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
If they're to be lifetime appointments, why isn't it the public who are voting for the nominees?


Thats the way it was set up in the Constiution by the founding fathers. It also allows a Justice relative freedom (In Theory) to make decisions without undue political influence. He or she is not beholden to whomever appointed them. Some justices have been thought of as conservatives have turned out to be liberal and vice versa. The Senate confirms the nomination of the presiden, both of which are elected.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
O'Connor's letter to President Bush:

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Recently Attorney General Al Gonzalez has been mentioned as Bush's top choice, but there are some conservatives who are angered by this because they feel he is not anti-abortion enough. Gonzalez was grilled during his SG nomination process over prisoner abuse issues.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Yes Fred the Justices are appointed for life so they don't have to worry about making decisions based on public opinion rather make a decision based on their best judgment of the laws. If a justice was to be voted by the people it would be a flawed system can you image all the negative and dis-info attacks and dirty politics. The truth would never get out and the public would not know the record and what the justice is really like. The senate voting on it seems much better in my opinion but not prefect.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes Fred the Justices are appointed for life so they don't have to worry about making decisions based on public opinion rather make a decision based on their best judgment of the laws. If a justice was to be voted by the people it would be a flawed system can you image all the negative and dis-info attacks and dirty politics. The truth would never get out and the public would not know the record and what the justice is really like. The senate voting on it seems much better in my opinion but not prefect.


And as it stands, the justices can make decisions based upon their own biases, and the biases of whoever put 'em in, correct? Knowing that no matter what, they will not be removed, regardless of any obvious or hidden bias?

Hmmmm. An imperfect system....but how would it become any closer to being "perfect"? Would allowing the senate to vote, overcome some of this bias?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
There's a possibility that Ted Olsen could be the nominee. Of interest to ATSers:

1) His wife was killed in the 9-11 attacks

2) He argued the case of Bush V. Gore in the Supreme court



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
So my thread on somebody resigning this week from the Supreme court was right, and I didn't got any credit from it.

I even said that it could be a women.

I am very sad.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I have a sick feeling that Gonzales will end up getting it.....
the conservatives don't like him because he's too "liberal" but I think, considering his torture memos and his stand as far as executive powers of the president goes, well, he's seems to be just what Bush is looking for!!

the libs will be worrying about the gay and abortion issue, and well, the preservation of the balance of power in the constitution will probably get second place to that.

I bet all and all, he'll be an easy shoe in.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I have a sick feeling that Gonzales will end up getting it.....


Bingo!!!!!!! let see how that one plays around. If we get another resignation we all know who that may be.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Non-American resident waving her hand and asking a question..

Why are these appointments for life?

If they're to be lifetime appointments, why isn't it the public who are voting for the nominees?


People shouldn’t vote for judge’s period. It allows special interest groups to gain even further power. Case in point look at MAD’s influence at the local level because of elections. Just imagine the influence of lobbyist on judges at the federal level. I use to agree judges should be voted in but now after coming to the realization I live in a nation full of #ing retards the consequences would be disastrous. Just like going to prison for driving drunk even if you didn't hurt anyone on the premise you could have is insane.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So my thread on somebody resigning this week from the Supreme court was right, and I didn't got any credit from it.

I even said that it could be a women.

I am very sad.


dont u wish Reagan was alive an in power where he appointed the first woman in the Supreme court.
i sure would.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join