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.

 

NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, has announced that she intends to retire. This retirement will allow President Bush to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice. Eleven years have elapsed since the last one, one of the longest stretches in history. Her appointment in 1981 by then President Ronald Reagan ended 191 years of all male justices. President Bush is expected to make a statement at 11:45 EST.

 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I will be sad to see O'Conner go. I can still remember her nomination and the confirmation hearings. She will be missed and no doubt the court is heading to the right. O'Conner was often the swing vote in many decisions and while she often sided with the conservatives, she would also venture into more liberal areas as well. This is the opportunity that the religious rights groups have been chomping at the bit for and it will be interesting to see if we get a female Robert Bork to appeal to these groups, or someone a bit more moderate that may be more palatable to the Senate.


[edit on 7/1/05 by FredT]




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
AG Gonzales is one of the names being mentioned as a possible replacement candidate. O'Connor was a crucial swing vote on this court, and whomever replaces her, appointed by this administration, is bound to be more conservative. We can kiss whatever civil liberties we thought we had goodbye for sure now. Our only hope is the Senate comes to its senses and tries to maintian some checks and balances on the MIC's political machine.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Good God, don't people realize what's happening? Our world is changing for the worse right before our eyes. It's a shadow takeover. Balance is the key to harmony. Without balance we, conservatives and liberals alike, can kiss all our rights goodbye. I don't know what's scarier, how obvious it all is or the fact that most people don't really seem worried.

Peace


[edit on 1-7-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Exactly what is obvious here?

Oh the drama. The invented drama.

For 200 plus years this is the way the system has worked. Justices are appointed to a life term. Meaning they are in office until they either die, or choose to retire.

Here's a shocking bit of news for some of you... in the last 200 years a few Justices have died or retired. Isn't that amazing? And what happened next was, whoever was the sitting President nominated a replacement and that person was either confirmed or not.

Suddenly now, due to the incredible overdramatization this is a shock to people. Calls of a takeover are abound because a Justice is resigning.

Guess what? There have been new Justices that were nominated by Republicans and Democrats alike.

How is this a "shadow takeover". The other Justices who are not retiring were all nominated by Presidents in years past. Some by Republicans, some by Democrats. I don't recall people shrieking like this when other appointments were made. Whoever is in the White House makes nominations. And when Bush is gone and someone else is there, that person will do it.

It's a natural occurence. The Supreme Court Justices will not remain in office on life support until a Democrat comes into office or until various drama clubs like whoever is President.

This is our system, it's set forth in the documents that formed our country. You have no right to call for it to change simply because you don't like who's in the White House.

You're concerned about our "rights". Me too, I'd like to know that people won't run around changing laws and fear mongering about how we're all going to hell because their party is out of power.

Once again, Supreme Court Justices resign and/or die. It has happened before, this isn't some uber-conspiracy.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Just when I think I can't feel any more ill from what the government does, something new happens.

Perhaps I should feel lucky that the retirement is from the conservative wing of the SC. Although considering what the replacement is likely to be, 'lucky' isn't the word to use.

I predict the government will come to a screeching halt over the SC nominations - AG nominee or no.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
It's official now. She's retired.
apnews.myway.com...
www.thesmokinggun.com...




Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Just when I think I can't feel any more ill from what the government does, something new happens.

Could you clerify this statement? Or did I miss something?

How does someone retiring, who was going to retire anyway, make you feel more ill about what the government does?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Oh yes, the world is definitely going to end without Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS....

NOT!

What are you people smoking? I'd like some!

I just hope Bush is a bit smarter than his father when it comes to this....we're still paying for his mistake of appointing Souter.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Getting this upset over your party not being in office is anti-America, I suggest you all move to Canada.

Our country was set up so that peaceful transfer of power between political parties would be the norm. If you don't like President Bush than just wait 3 years then a new President will be elected. Okay?

What is President Bush suppose to do, appoint a super liberal judge? Of course not....

...get over it people this is how America has been working for hundreds of years!!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   


How does someone retiring, who was going to retire anyway, make you feel more ill about what the government does?


The retirement is not what makes me ill - it's the thoughts of what's going to happen in choosing the replacement. First, a far right religious conservative will be nominated because the most vocal and active Republicans will accept nothing less. Second, the government will implode over the nominations. The nuclear option will be played. Third, contemplating the rulings of said religious conservative should the nomination be confirmed makes me feel ill.

Listening to a far right wacko tell me that it's OK if a mother dies from a pregnancy when abortion is illegal because it's 'god's will', listening to his anger about the power women have gained in general (because he thinks they should stay home and defer to men), and a whole lot of other sickening things that prompted his political activity on the far right - these made me ill at the time, and make me ill now when I think that these weirdos are now controlling the government.

I worked in the Republican party for quite a while while religious conservatives were in the ascendency. They care NOTHING about the constitution, and the only things they do care about is their own religious ideology, attaining the power to legislate them, and taking control of the ENTIRE government in order to get what they want done. They don't care that their views are not in the majority, or what it might do to the country if their agenda were accomplished. These people are nothing short of evil in their ambition to attain power to do whatever they want.

The pro-corporate wing is taking away the civil rights of the common citizens, and the far-right religious wing is taking away the most personal rights.

I feel ill because I see my country being destroyed before my very eyes.

And yes, despite the fact that my family has been in the US since the Mayflower, I have thought about leaving.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   


Listening to a far right wacko tell me that it's OK if a mother dies from a pregnancy when abortion is illegal because it's 'god's will', listening to his anger about the power women have gained in general (because he thinks they should stay home and defer to men)


Okay, even super conservitives feel that when the mothers life is in danger that abortion should be used. Can you please explain to be where to got the idea that the Bush adminstation is "angered" over womens power? Why, do you state that they feel that women should defer to men?

That is a lie.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Listening to a far right wacko tell me that it's OK if a mother dies from a pregnancy when abortion is illegal because it's 'god's will'


I don't believe it has ever been illegal for women to receive an abortion to save their life. Roe vs. Wade was simply a ruling on women receiving abortions for convenience when there were no health risks involved.

All this change is normal. It's a pendulum that swings both ways. It swings to the left, and then to the right. One day you're so ready for summer-time, and then a month later you can't wait for it to cool off and turn to fall. People just aren't happy with what they have.



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


Okay, even super conservitives feel that when the mothers life is in danger that abortion should be used. Can you please explain to be where to got the idea that the Bush adminstation is "angered" over womens power? Why, do you state that they feel that women should defer to men?


You need to educate yourself about the activists in the Republican Party. I have TALKED to them, in person. Evidently, you have not.

Have you ever been to a Republican convention in the south? If not, then you don't know what you're talking about!

Please go to www.freerepublic.com. Do a search on abortion and READ the posts. It's fairly reflective of those in the party.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Except for the sheeple blindly following the dance of partisanship, I don't understand the concern. Recent judgements have demonstrated *exactly* who SCOTUS works for, and it was both sides of the aisle voting for the impossible definition of Eminent Domain.

The Court votes for socialist/facsist ideals. Look up the actual definition of Fascism, and get past the knee jerk Nazi connotations. Government and business strongly tied together, running things for their own benefit. Abolishment of religion, making Government the supreme power. Much like China and the former Soviet system. Distract the people with concerns over smaller rights and lifestlye concerns and entertainment-much as the Romans were forced to do as their empire crumbled. But today's government has the benefit of lessons learned from all these failed and failing systems. The common denominator in all those systems is that government exists for it's own benefit, and the people are the means to obtain those goals. Nothing is done for the people except as a carrot, or a stick, to lead them where government wants. This is the exact opposite of what the United States was created for.

Absolute control of media and information, which is manipulated for political gain by both sides, or so diluted with dubious entertainment value as to be totally worthless. Liberal and conservative medias alike, all about "ratings" rather than content.

Whether Bush appoints a justice or the Demos get their choice, or President to Be Hillary gets her choice, the end result will still be the same.

"By their actions we shall know them."



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   


I don't believe it has ever been illegal for women to receive an abortion to save their life. Roe vs. Wade was simply a ruling on women receiving abortions for convenience when there were no health risks involved.


When I worked in the party in Texas, the activists got a plank added to the party platform that abortion would not be allowed under ANY circumstances - total ban. They also had a plank added that any elected official of the party MUST follow the party platform when they vote (and NOT vote their conscience).

How's that for political philosophy?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I predict the "Constitutional Option" will be used as soon as the summer recess is over. Good-bye Mr. filibuster
The Democrats blew their last chance when the filibustered John Bolton's UN appointment. Ironically the President will probably just end up appointing him during the recess anyways.
It's going to be war in the Senate for sure, and since the Republicans have the "Nuclear" option on standby, look for the Democrats to be screaming from their bomb shelters. "Boo hoo hoo!"

[edit on 1-7-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I have adopted the theory that government works the best when it does the least. If arguing over one SCOTUS nomination shuts Congress down for awhile, it just gives us a little breathing room before the next round of national abuse of power.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Agreed dbates.

There's no way Bush is going to risk appointing a "moderate" with wishy-washy views and risk getting another Souter on the Court. The Dems are owned now by the far-left groups like moveon.org and will filibuster. The Republicans will have no choice but to break it. I think it'll be good for the country.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Agreed dbates.

There's no way Bush is going to risk appointing a "moderate" with wishy-washy views and risk getting another Souter on the Court. The Dems are owned now by the far-left groups like moveon.org and will filibuster. The Republicans will have no choice but to break it. I think it'll be good for the country.


I agree fully.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is going to be a huge debate in congress. As FredT stated, O'Connor was the swing vote in the Supreme Court. Bush is going to want a conservative on the bench, and the Dems will want a liberal to just left of center appointee.

I suspect this will be a paramount test of the seven democrats who had said they wouldn't filibuster court nominees, as well...If they don't filibuster, I'm going to have to take back some of the things I said about McCain in another thread.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
What a freaking disaster. That means there'll be 2 open seats soon. I better start shifting my job search to Canada...future looks bleak here.

I just hope the dems have the backbone to stand up to Bush and force him to choose a moderate conservative candidate at least. Hell, I wouldn't mind Gonzales so much, torture advocate that he is. At least he's moderate on other issues. But what am I thinking? Democrats with a backbone? Ha...


PS- Djohnson, who are the republicans owned by then? Be honest.

[edit on 7/1/2005 by Flinx]




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join