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: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Sorry to go off topic here but aren't there elections next year? For the Senate or something like that? If so, you can take some power back by putting the Dems in control of that. Now you just have to make it until next year.




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It's not conservative or liberal any more. It's not a democracy or a republic. We are now ruled by a corporate oligarchy that pulls the strings regardless of what party is in power. To think that the supreme court is immune from their influence is very naive. Dumbing down, disinformation, dividing the populace into fueding camps makes for much easier manipulation. I used to think it was about money. They have all the money. It's about power and control. Welcome to the monkey house!!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
How can the corporations influence the Supreme Court? Threaten to take away campaign funds? The justices serve until they don't want to anymore or until they're dead. The Constitution framed it this way to prevent party politics from gaining a third branch of our government. The Supreme Court Justices are not accountable, after appointment, to anyone, including the president -- only the law.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Perhaps this will be the best thing for the country. When Bush appoints a regressive nut job to the court to replace O'Connor (and another to replace Renquist) and abortion will become illegal, the Americans with Disabilities Act is repealed, Due Process is allowed to be further limited, campaign financing laws are loosened again, and congressional districts are allowed to be drawn based on biased factors (all cases where O'Connor was the deciding swing vote), perhaps the majority will wake up and see what is going on.

The majority of the country supports keeping abortion legal and safe. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will push the issue to the states. Pro-choice candidates will win big and kick these Regressive Nanny-State Anti-Constitutionalists out of Congress and out of the White House.... and hopefully out of out lives for a long, long time.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   


The majority of the country supports keeping abortion legal and safe.


Here's what we can look forward to after confirmation of BushCos religious right nominee:



Under a bill that contains "exceptions," a baby who is conceived by rape or incest, or has a physical or mental disability, or whose mother can find a doctor who will say that her health will be severely affected by the pregnancy is simply not entitled to equal protection under the law. Such a measure divides people into classes and gives the state legal power to treat those classes differently.


www.all.org...

I was so disgusted by these whack jobs that I left the party over it. Now they control the White House, both houses of Congress, and they have their eye on the Supreme Court.

The future looks grim.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
What's really interesting is what her final court case was. She offered a dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court's decision to make all property public if it can make the city more money. She noted that this was a horrible idea because it would become open season on churches and other houses of worship. They are tax exempt, and by the wording of the Supreme Court decision, replacing a church with a stripmall is absloutly acceptable.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Oh

lol AWingAndASigh. Here I thought you were pissed at something that has happened already. Why didn't you tell me you were psychic?


While I think all your doom and gloom rhetoric is out of touch with reality, I do think there will be a battle.

....but not to replace O'Connor.....

I think when Rehnquist retires, then you'll see a battle. Here's some pretty accurate to date speculation that was written about a week ago that I think will pretty much remain accurate.
www.weeklystandard.com...



O'Connor, Not Rehnquist?
And Gonzales to replace O'Connor?
by William Kristol
06/22/2005

Warning: THIS IS SPECULATION. Obviously, I think it's somewhat well-informed speculation, or else I wouldn't be writing this. But it is speculation.

(1) There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are several tea-leaf-like suggestions that O'Connor may be stepping down, including the fact that she has apparently arranged to spend much more time in Arizona beginning this fall. There are also recent intimations that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not resign. This would be consistent with Justice O'Connor having confided her plan to step down to the chief a while ago. Rehnquist probably believes that it wouldn't be good for the Court to have two resignations at once, so he would presumably stay on for as long as his health permits, and/or until after Justice O'Connor's replacement is confirmed.

(2) President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.

And his aides will have an argument to make to conservatives (like me) who would be unhappy with a Gonzales pick: Bush would not, after all, be replacing a conservative stalwart like Rehnquist with Gonzales. Gonzales would be taking O'Connor's seat, and Gonzales is likely to be as conservative as, or even more conservative than, O'Connor. Indeed, Karl Rove will continue, Gonzales is as conservative a nominee to replace O'Connor as one could find who could overcome
a threatened Democratic filibuster. Bush aides will also assure us privately that when Rehnquist does step down, Bush will nominate a strong conservative as his replacement. They might not tell us that nominee would be as an associate justice, for Bush would plan to then promote Gonzales to chief justice--thus creating a "Gonzales Court," a truly distinctive Bush legacy.

A Gonzales nomination would, in my view, virtually forfeit any chance in the near term for a fundamental reversal in the downward drift of American constitutional jurisprudence. But I now think it is more likely than not to happen.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   


lol AWingAndASigh. Here I thought you were pissed at something that has happened already. Why didn't you tell me you were psychic?


I don't have to be a psychic to figure out what's going on in DC.

EVERYONE attempts to predict future actions of a nominee, including the president prior to nominating them. I don't think it's unreasonable to project future actions based on past behavior.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Hey maybe Bush will surprise. If he cares about the country at all he'll do the right thing. The nation is based on checks and balances, let's hope he gets it.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
.
Now the Whitehouse will have a chance to do for the Supreme Court what it has done for Iraq,

destroy it.

What a sad day.
Thank You for being the voice of centrist sanity on the court Judge O'Connor.

A westerner who felt the open breezes and freedom of the west, without the need to impose restrictive ideologies on others.

You will be missed by me.
.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
One liberal and one moderate conservative?? I'm sorry, but the timing of her retirement and Rehnquist's troubles really leads me to believe that there is something more going on. Not necessarily a conspiracy but some serious arm-twisting behind the scenes perhaps. I think Supreme Court Justices can be influenced and gotten-to just like anyone else. A far-right shift seems to be happening at an accelerated pace during this administration. It's abnormal IMO.

I think Justice O'Connor needs to realize that her country needs her now maybe more than ever. No offense intended but it's not like Supreme Court Justices have to 'work' a whole bunch.

Peace



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I agree. No doubt the far right predicts that the Republicans will be tossed out in 2006, which will eliminate their chance to rule the world. So, they have to get what they want done in the shortest possible time.

I, too, wondered at the timing for O'Connor's resignation.

However, if Rove is neck deep in scandal over the Plame deal - generating public outrage (assuming this admin actually lets the news shows talk about it) - then the SC nominee might go on the back burner for a while. Perhaps Congress will be concerned about Impeachment questions instead.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I think Supreme Court Justices can be influenced and gotten-to just like anyone else. A far-right shift seems to be happening at an accelerated pace during this administration. It's abnormal IMO.

I think Justice O'Connor needs to realize that her country needs her now maybe more than ever. No offense intended but it's not like Supreme Court Justices have to 'work' a whole bunch.


Her husband has Alzheimer's, so I'm sure that is her main reason for leaving.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Out with the old, in with the new.

Let the games begin!

They may judge us. But they are not Gods.

Are they?







 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join