O’Connor, high court’s first woman, retires

[Martrae]

Friday, July 1, 2005
By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

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.

“This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”

President Bush planned to make a statement at 11:15 a.m. EDT in the White House Rose Garden on her resignation. Spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush would not at that time be announcing a nominee to succeed her.

O’Connor’s appointment came amid speculation that the aging court would soon have a vacancy. But speculation has most recently focused on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, and suffering from thyroid cancer. Rehnquist has offered no public clue as to his plans.

The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O’Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush’s pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush’s father.

O’Connor’s appointment in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, quickly confirmed by the Senate, ended 191 years of male exclusivity on the high court.

She wasted little time building a reputation as a hard-working moderate conservative who emerged as a crucial power broker on the nine-member court.

O’Connor often lines up with the court’s conservative bloc, as she did in 2000 when the court voted to stop Florida presidential ballot recounts sought by Al Gore, and effectively called the election for President Bush.

As a “swing voter,” however, O’Connor sometimes votes with more liberal colleagues.

Perhaps the best example of her influence is the court’s evolving stance on abortion. She distanced herself both from her three most conservative colleagues, who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion, and from more liberal justices for whom the right is a given.

O’Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right. Commentators called O’Connor the nation’s most powerful woman, but O’Connor poo-poohed the thought.

“I don’t think it’s accurate,” she said in an Associated Press interview.

O’Connor in late 1988 was diagnosed as having breast cancer, and she underwent a mastectomy. She missed just two weeks of work. That same year, she had her appendix removed.

For years, O’Connor had an involuntary nodding of her head, but said she never had it diagnosed. The movement, while not constant, was an up-and-down motion similar to that made by someone nodding in the affirmative.

O’Connor remained the court’s only woman until 1993 when, much to O’Connor’s delight and relief, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Themosticles]

Let the games begin...

[brinstar]

fuck! i was hoping we'd make it through 2008 without a vacancy opening up. i don't trust monkeys with appointing justices any more than i'd trust a three-year-old performing brain surgery

[Phlegm]

does this mean that roe vs wade is going... going... gone?

[Narrock]

All I can say is they better get another moderate conservative back in there to maintain the balance. Preferably a conservative, but I'll take a moderate just like O' Connor was.

[Rust]

Freakishly, I agree with Mindia.

--R.

[Eziekial]

Fuck moderates. That middle of the road crap is what has caused a majority of the mess we have to deal with today. I was a fire-brand constitutionalist appointed to do what this court is suppost to do.

[Narrock]

Fuck moderates. That middle of the road crap is what has caused a majority of the mess we have to deal with today. I was a fire-brand constitutionalist appointed to do what this court is suppost to do.

That's what made O' Connor interesting, to say the least. She was the "swing" vote that nobody knew for sure which way she was going to vote on various issues.

[Gidan]

I also really hope its a moderate that gets apointed. I really hope we dont get some right (or left though there is no worries about that with bush in office) wing extremest. We are going to have to live with this person for a very long time.

[Themosticles]

Political affilication should hold no weight, right or left. As Ez stated earlier, the appointee should be someone who simply upholds the constitution. OUR constitution, not France's or Canada's or South Africa's. Appoint someone like that and I, and I'm willing to bet, many others, couldn't care less where that person comes from, right or left. do your job like you're supposed to and leave the politics to the politicians.

[kaharthemad]

problem is too many people (both sides) think Roe VS Wade and other such fucked up rulings should be a litmus test to wether or not they are good for the position. Screw that. appoint a person in there that will land the gavel and say "hey this is not what the constitution meant." I think one case comes to mind... Kelo v. New London. If you want a litmus test use that..if the guy or gal says...i think Sutter and the rest of his ilk ruled appropriate tell the assclown to take his bar appointment fold it into all corners and shove it up his ass.

[Gidan]

problem is too many people (both sides) think Roe VS Wade and other such fucked up rulings should be a litmus test to wether or not they are good for the position. Screw that. appoint a person in there that will land the gavel and say "hey this is not what the constitution meant." I think one case comes to mind... Kelo v. New London. If you want a litmus test use that..if the guy or gal says...i think Sutter and the rest of his ilk ruled appropriate tell the assclown to take his bar appointment fold it into all corners and shove it up his ass.

So who decides what the constitution means? Lots of people have a very different view on it.

Political affiliation has everything to do with a Supreme Court justice. In a perfect world it wouldn't but this is a far from perfect world. Most people choose their political affiliation, it doesn't choose them. They choose it because they believe that’s how things should be. This holds true for the justices as well. If many different people read the exact same thing, you will get many different views on what it means. This is also true of the constitution; if it wasn't there would be no need to multiple justices.

The political affiliation of a judge is more a sign of how he will interpret the constitution. Roe V Wade is actually a very good example. Conservative rep's tend to see it as a bad ruling because they are against abortion, while liberal dem's tend to see it as a good ruling because they are for abortion. If you are a high powered rep in a position to appoint a justice, who are you more likely to appoint? Someone who agrees with you on how you interpret the constitution or someone who disagrees with you?

This is what is actually good about moderates, they are open to both sides.

[kaharthemad]

but the problem is using the RVW ruling as a litmus is a bad form. this ruling is long since dead good or bad. The best we can hope for a removing late term abortions and partial birth abortions.

I think most people nowadays could care 2/10s of a crap about the abortion issue. if you want a litmus test make it on something that the public is more concerned about.

The point is a litmus is should not be set at all. According to our constitution congress does not even get a up or down vote. The constitution stipulates the justices are apointed by the executive branch...thats it.

[Themosticles]

This is the problem though, Gidan. You're mandating a litmus test for judicial appointees which should never exist. Your job as a judge is to interpret and follow the constitution and uphold the rule of law. There is no political party affiliation associated with the actual document.

Further, the constitution states that the president nominates candidates to the courts and the only job the senate has is to aprove or disaprove that nomination via and up or down vote. No where does it call for the president to confer with the senate prior to nomination. And even further, no where does it state that by voting no on a particular nomination should give you the right to appoint a "better" choice. Its not their job, as much as today's Democrates want you to believe that is their right.

[Harrison]

Tell them that...

[Gidan]

This is the problem though, Gidan. You're mandating a litmus test for judicial appointees which should never exist. Your job as a judge is to interpret and follow the constitution and uphold the rule of law. There is no political party affiliation associated with the actual document.

Further, the constitution states that the president nominates candidates to the courts and the only job the senate has is to aprove or disaprove that nomination via and up or down vote. No where does it call for the president to confer with the senate prior to nomination. And even further, no where does it state that by voting no on a particular nomination should give you the right to appoint a "better" choice. Its not their job, as much as today's Democrates want you to believe that is their right.

There may be no political affiliation to the document, however there is certainly political affiliation to the interpretation of that document.

I do agree with you however on the down vote does not give you a right to appoint a beter choice.

[Gidan]

but the problem is using the RVW ruling as a litmus is a bad form. this ruling is long since dead good or bad. The best we can hope for a removing late term abortions and partial birth abortions.

I think most people nowadays could care 2/10s of a crap about the abortion issue. if you want a litmus test make it on something that the public is more concerned about.

The point is a litmus is should not be set at all. According to our constitution congress does not even get a up or down vote. The constitution stipulates the justices are apointed by the executive branch...thats it.

I am not sure what country you live in, but I can assure you that in the US, abortion is still a very large issue. I also do not see the preisdent thinking what would this person rule on x or y, its more of what does this person believe on a grand scale and what the president thinks would be in teh best interest of the US as he sees it.

[Lyion]

Amazingly, the best thing the liberals could hope for is Bush to nominate Alberto Gonzalez. If I were them, I'd be lobbying like hell for this.