Fox is reporting on their Breaking News line Justice O'Connor retirement is imminent

[mlyonsd]

I can't find another source to back it up yet though.

[Brock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100305_pf.html

confirmed

[KCFalcon59]

Brace yourselves!! It's going to be ugly.

[tyton75]

wow... I figured Rehnquist.. but Sandra?!?! this is going to make for some interesting mudslinging and all around good tv! :)

[KCTitus]

Sweet...Bush should nominate Miguel Estrada.

[Michael Michigan]

Sweet...Bush should nominate Miguel Estrada.

Damn I hope not.

[KCTitus]

Damn I hope not.

And why not?

[Michael Michigan]

And why not?

Too moderate, too damn unpredictable.

[mlyonsd]

Too moderate, too damn unpredictable.

Careful, if you state your opinion too much you'll lose the hack label Taco gave you.

[Cochise]

Damnit. It can't be Ginsberg, noooo it's got to be O'Connor.

Well, one thing we can all agree on, this will get interesting.

And now, the countdown until the "exceptional circumstances" chant begins.

[KCTitus]

Too moderate, too damn unpredictable.

I think you're referring to Gonzales, the one that is rumored to be Bush's pick. I will be livid if he's selected. We need another Thomas/Scalia on the court not another weak-kneed 'moderate'.

[mlyonsd]

I say pick a conservative with impeccable credentials and let the Democrats filibuster. That's what should have happened with the other judicial nominees.

[the Talking Can]

James Dobson is fellating himself right now.

[Bootlegged]

Too bad Johnny Cochran has expired.

[Amnorix]

I say pick a conservative with impeccable credentials and let the Democrats filibuster. That's what should have happened with the other judicial nominees.

And that is smart/practical why? Just having the nomination blocked indefinitely isn't necessarily all that clever. And if the President/Republicans are seen as selecting someone who is too conservative, then the public will back the Democrats blocking efforts, which means stalemate and possible Republican losses in the mid-term election.

I'd go with a moderate righty if I were Bush. If the Republicans can get closer to 60 votes in the mid-term elections, then perhaps a hardened conservative down the road, if hte opportunity presents itself.

I'm speaking from a strategy piont of view, not as a Democrat. Bush can do what he wants, and the Democrats will need to assess the candidate and hte proper strategy at that point in time.

[KCTitus]

moderate righty = SCOTUS expanding eminent domain for private companies.

No thanks, we need a constructionist on the court and I believe the people that elected the President just 9 months ago will support that no matter what the 'opinion' polls show.

[Miles]

Well there goes my favorite current justice. Im a bit suprised that she opted for retirement before Renquist.

[Brock]

James Dobson is fellating himself right now.

I didn't know he was into yoga.

[Michael Michigan]

I think you're referring to Gonzales, the one that is rumored to be Bush's pick. I will be livid if he's selected. We need another Thomas/Scalia on the court not another weak-kneed 'moderate'.


My mistake. You are right. I was thinking of Gonzales.

I would no problem with Miguel Estrada.

[mlyonsd]

And that is smart/practical why? Just having the nomination blocked indefinitely isn't necessarily all that clever. And if the President/Republicans are seen as selecting someone who is too conservative, then the public will back the Democrats blocking efforts, which means stalemate and possible Republican losses in the mid-term election.

I'd go with a moderate righty if I were Bush. If the Republicans can get closer to 60 votes in the mid-term elections, then perhaps a hardened conservative down the road, if hte opportunity presents itself.

I'm speaking from a strategy piont of view, not as a Democrat. Bush can do what he wants, and the Democrats will need to assess the candidate and hte proper strategy at that point in time.

I'm talking strategy too. I didn't mean to infer a far right wacko conservative. Just one they can prove administers the law fairly without bias.

If Bush would nominate someone like that and the Dems filibuster, I would argue the public would side with the Republicans during mid-term elections. I think we're saying the same thing but disagreeing on which side the public would fall, depending on the nominee.

My gripe with the judicial nominee agreement McCain and the others forged is that they just pushed this argument out to this point. I've always thought if Bush nominated serious contenders they would stand up in the public forum. Call the Democrat's bluff persay.

[alanm]

Too bad Johnny Cochran has expired.
Forget OJ, Cochran is doing his best defense presentation at the moment trying to stay out of hell. :)

[Laz]

Careful, if you state your opinion too much you'll lose the hack label Taco gave you.
no he won't


he's too firmly entrenched to lose it

[Taco John]

I think you're referring to Gonzales, the one that is rumored to be Bush's pick. I will be livid if he's selected. We need another Thomas/Scalia on the court not another weak-kneed 'moderate'.



Gonzalez can't be picked... He'd have to recuse himself if anything came up with regards to Bush Administration issues because of his level of involvement. There's too much at stake for Bush to nominate a Justice who would leave the courts with the possibility of a tie.

[Ari Chi3fs]

Sweet...Bush should nominate Miguel Estrada.

No. He should nominate Erik Estrada.

http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/261/261516.jpg

[Taco John]

Personally, after the Terri Schaivo ordeal, I'm hoping Bush nominates as conservative a judge as he possibly can get away with.

[siberian khatru]

Gonzalez can't be picked... He'd have to recuse himself if anything came up with regards to Bush Administration issues because of his level of involvement. There's too much at stake for Bush to nominate a Justice who would leave the courts with the possibility of a tie.

That's an excellent point. I've seen it raised elsewhere, but kudos to you for posting it here.

[Soupnazi]

Personally, after the Terri Schaivo ordeal, I'm hoping Bush nominates as conservative a judge as he possibly can get away with.

I'm more concerned with the issue of property rights. After the latest ruling re: eminent domain, I'd like to see as strict a constructionist as possible on the court. I don't know if one would qualify that as conservative or not.

[Cochise]

I'm more concerned with the issue of property rights. After the latest ruling re: eminent domain, I'd like to see as strict a constructionist as possible on the court. I don't know if one would qualify that as conservative or not.

O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion on that, so she was one of the 4 in the 5-4 decision IIRC.

It will be important to nominate someone who wants to defend property rights, to at least keep the leftist majority margin on this subject limited to 1 vote.

[Warrior5]

No. He should nominate Erik Estrada.

Let he power of Ponch compel you.

[BigOlChiefsfan]

I like to refer to Eugene Volokh's blog when the law hit the front pages. Many of you might like his stuff as well. IIRC, he teaches 'free speech law' at UCLA.

http://volokh.com/

[the Talking Can]

I like to refer to Eugene Volokh's blog when the law hit the front pages. Many of you might like his stuff as well. IIRC, he teaches 'free speech law' at UCLA.

http://volokh.com/

Thanks, looks like a interesting site...

"Three Lessons for the Great Debate About to Begin: I recall very well the debates over the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Both featured the most elevated public discourse over constitutional interpretation in my lifetime. Of course, both nominations were also marred by ugly personal attacks and false charges. For the upcoming nomination, we can expect both types of discourse. To that end, some may wish to review the debate I recently had with Cass Sunstein over at LegalAffairs.org. Cass and others such as Jeff Rosen have promoted the trope "Constitution in Exile" to describe those who favor enforcing the whole Constitution according to its original meaning. The alternative is to enforce only portions of the text according to whatever meaning yields "good" results.

It is useful to review this debate to see the difference in our approaches so one can better track and participate constructively in the forthcoming debate. My approach focuses on restoring portions of the "lost" Constitution that the Courts have long ignored--such as the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Second Amendment, the "public use" portion of the Takings Clause, the Ninth Amendment, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cass consistently focused, not on the text of the Constitution, but on a list of results--either good results he favored preserving or bad results he contended that the fictitious "Constitution in Exile movement" wanted to achieve.

LESSON ONE: Watch the switch from a list of ignored textual provision to good and bad results.

This debate should not allowed to be turned into a debate over results. It should instead be a debate over constitutional method and the restoration of portions of the text that have long been discarded. This includes challenges to judicial conservatives who, like Justice Scalia, would continue to ignore the Ninth Amendment or Privileges or Immunities Clause because they fail to meet his standard for a "rule of law." Ignoring portions of the Constitution because they fail to conform to your theory of the "rule of law" is no different than ignoring portions that fail to conform to your theory of "justice."

LESSON TWO: Watch the switch from meaningful scrutiny to extremely deferential "rational basis" scrutiny, as a means of continuing to ignore portions of the text.

And by "ignoring" I include adopting an extremely deferential "rational basis" approach that yields all discretion to the legislative branches, as Justice Stevens explicitly and Justice Scalia implicitly recently did in the medical cannabis case when applying the Necessary and Proper Clause. This is a game that both "liberals" and "conservatives" can play. It is not "activist" for judges to demand of legislatures that they have a real and justified reason for restricting the liberties of the people--something more than mere assertion. Whenever legislatures need not meet any burden of justification whatsoever--e.g. Justice Stevens' approach in both Raich and Kelo--the scheme of federalism and limited enumerated powers is undermined.

LESSON THREE: Watch for an appeal to "precedent" to attack a nominee who may favor reviving the original meaning of portions of the text--e.g. the "public use" portion of the Takings Clause--that have been ignored for far too long.

Another technique for ignoring the text is to elevate the importance of past nonoriginalist judicial decisions in the name of "precedent." The "liberal" side of the Court has never accepted the "precedents" of Lopez and Morrison. Nor could "liberal" or "moderate" justice be counted on to accept any precedent that does not accord with the results that drive their approaches. For the same reason, a "conservative" (or libertarian) Justice should give little weight to nonoriginalist precedent that justifies ignoring portions of the text. It is the Constitution to which a judge (and Senator) takes an oath, not past decisions by the Supreme Court. The issue of precedent is very complicated, however. I explain some of these complications here.

[Logical]

Too moderate, too damn unpredictable.
A reason I would be OK with him as a candidate. Give me someone similar in views with Sandra Day, but a little more moderate still and I would be happy. I guess after reading more it is Gonzalez I would want.

[go bowe]

nah, since the governator can't run for president, why not put him on the supreme court? :p :p :p

[Logical]

nah, since the governator can't run for president, why not put him on the supreme court? :p :p :pROFLROFLROFLYou have to admit it would make the Courts Q&As far more entertaining, but I shudder at this really happening.