The W
Views: 95618293
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.14 1822
The W - Current Events & Politics - Let the Fun Begin: Sandra Day O'Connor Retires
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.05
Pages: 1
(710 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (6 total)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 611 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
Well, this (cnn.com) ought to be interesting.
    Originally posted by CNN
    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.


I'm quite interested to see how this nomination battle plays out since it will probably be the defining moment for the leadership of both parties, especially for Bill Frist and his rather silly Presidential ambitions.

Tim

(edited by bash91 on 1.7.05 1046)


Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2846 days
Last activity: 59 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
It's not necessarily the omen of Abortion Wars: Revenge of the Sith that it would seem to be. O'Connor was a pro-abortion swing vote, but keep in mind that Ginsberg replaced White, meaning that even if Attila the Hun replaces O'Connor there's still a five-vote bloc for retaining the status quo.

Pressure on Kennedy will become enormous, however.

EDIT: I believe Breyer replaced White, not Ginsberg. Either way, there's still a 5-4 tilt.

(edited by vsp on 1.7.05 1304)


Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
whatever
Lap cheong








Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 49 min.
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.47
Thanks for the image of our new Supreme Court Justice - Attila the Hun. *He'll* take full advantage of the eminent domain ruling.

Any real immediate front-runners for the position?

(edited by whatever on 1.7.05 1404)


"Lita holds a Stone Cold Steve Austin home pregnancy test. What will the Bottom Line say? “Hell Yeah” or “Eh-EH”?" - Raw Satire, 6/15/04
(Apparantly ours said "Hell Yeah", 03/08/05)

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
    Originally posted by whatever
    Thanks for the image of our new Supreme Court Justice - Attila the Hun. *He'll* take full advantage of the eminent domain ruling.

    Any real immediate front-runners for the position?

    (edited by whatever on 1.7.05 1404)


My thoughts are that the President will nominate someone who will piss off the Libs in a major way: Miguel Estrada. He's a strict constructionist, which means he would have a negative vote on a lot of the stuff that the Supremes have taken to the Fed - including abortion, death penelty, eminent domain - and return that right to the states. Simply because the constitution does not cover those issues.

Then they will go crazy and he'll pull Estrada on a deal to put him on the Appellate where he belongs and put in Alberto Gomez. He's a strict constructionist too, but not as strident about it as Estrada. How can the Libs reject TWO Latinos?



Holy Smokes!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 291 days
Last activity: 291 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.24
As much as the media is going off about how this will be a tough fight for Bush to get one of his picks confirmed, I don't see it that way. Thomas was able to get through a Democratic controlled Senate; and thus a Democratic controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, in '91 when he took Marshall's seat, so why a Republican controlled Senate would block Bush's replacement of O'Connor would be puzzling. Hell, if Bork had been nominated by Reagan in '86 and Scalia in '87, Bork would be on the Court and Scalia would not, as the Democrats would have used their Iran-Contra momentum to block Scalia in the manner they did Bork. Actually, I'd love to see Bork get nominated by Bush just as a giant F-U to the Democrats in the Senate, but that won't happen.
As for the filibuster option: Much easier to do that with circuit court judges most of the public doesn't care about than with a Supreme Court Justice. Also, that is a weapon that probably could only be taken out of the bag once, and with Blackmon's age (or, considering Blackmon has been dead for a few years, maybe I mean Stevens. Damn free shots in the afternoon) and Rehnquist's health, using it on O'Connor's replacement would be risky.

(edited by redsoxnation on 3.7.05 1744)
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2653 days
Last activity: 2382 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.83
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    As much as the media is going off about how this will be a tough fight for Bush to get one of his picks confirmed, I don't see it that way. Thomas was able to get through a Democratic controlled Senate; and thus a Democratic controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, in '91 when he took Marshall's seat, so why a Republican controlled Senate would block Bush's replacement of O'Connor would be puzzling. Hell, if Bork had been nominated by Reagan in '86 and Scalia in '87, Bork would be on the Court and Scalia would not, as the Democrats would have used their Iran-Contra momentum to block Scalia in the manner they did Bork. Actually, I'd love to see Bork get nominated by Bush just as a giant F-U to the Democrats in the Senate, but that won't happen.
    As for the filibuster option: Much easier to do that with circuit court judges most of the public doesn't care about than with a Supreme Court Justice. Also, that is a weapon that probably could only be taken out of the bag once, and with Blackmon's age and Rehnquist's health, using it on O'Connor's replacement would be risky.


But with Rehnquist, even if Bush nominates someone who is solidly conservative, well so is Rehnquist, so that's a one for one swap. If you replace the more moderate O'Connor with someone like a Thomas or Scalia (which is the type of judges Bush wants), then you tip the balance of the Court more to the right, which the Dems will obviously fight tooth and nail. That's the reason I don't think that they're going to wait to pull the filibuster trick out of the hat.

And I think you mean Stevens rather than Blackmon, which is a whole different issue because he is probably the most liberal member of the Court and the thought of Bush replacing him with a conservative I'm sure doesn't sit well with liberals.



SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
Thread rated: 4.05
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: CU gives Ward "Shoot your officers" Churchill raise
Next thread: NASA-mania -- comet vs satellite
Previous thread: Karl Rove named in CIA Identity Leak
(710 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Eh, his stuff might fly over everyone's heads too. And besides, you try pulling him away from "Full Metal Challenge".
- drjayphd, New Politically Incorrect (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Let the Fun Begin: Sandra Day O'Connor RetiresRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.102 seconds.