Sandra Day O'Connor Announces Retirement

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Sandra Day O’Connor Announces Retirement; Who Will Take Her Place?</p>

<p>Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate who often was the Supreme Court’s swing vote, announced her retirement this morning.</p>

<p>A Supreme Court vacancy was expected, but much of the speculation centered on Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, who missed five months of oral arguments during the last term because of thyroid cancer.</p>

<p>While Rehnquist, the second-oldest chief justice, still could announce his retirement at any time this summer, it is O’Connor, 75, who is stepping down.</p>

<p>“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,” she said in a statement. “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.”</p>

<p>President Bush planned to make a statement today but spokesperson Scott McClellan said Bush would not be announcing a nominee to succeed her.</p>

<p>O’Connor was appointed by former President Reagan in 1981. She was the first woman named to the high court, the importance of which she didn’t grasp immediately. </p>

<p>“I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country,” she once said. “It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It’s important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves.”</p>

<p>Once named to the court, O’Connor wasted little time building a reputation as a moderate.</p>

<p>She often fell in line with the court’s conservative bloc, such as in 2000, when the court stopped former Vice President Al Gore’s bid to recount Florida’s presidential ballots. </p>

<p>But during the court’s high-profile ruling on Ten Commandments, O’Connor proved once again that her departure would provoke a cultural war in Washington, D.C. O’Connor’s vote made the decision 5-4 against the displaying the Commandments in county courthouses. </p>

<p>O’Connor also was an important player in the court’s evolving stance on abortion. In 1992, she voted to uphold the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, calling it “a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.”</p>

<p>O’Connor also supported preferential treatment for people of color during the 1980s, when the Reagan administration wanted to dismantle such programs.</p>

<p>More recently, she was the key vote when the court upheld affirmative-action policies on the country’s college campuses. (See also: The Ten Biggest Myths About Affirmative Action)</p>

<p>With retirement rumors circulating for months, a handful of people have been identified as possible replacements. The Washington Times reported last week that a small group of Bush administration officials had quietly interviewed several candidates, among them recently appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior adviser Karl Rove. </p>

<p>Bush has promoted diversity among the upper ranks of his administration. He now has an opportunity to name the first Latino to the nation’s highest court. Besides Gonzales, Emilio Garza, of the New Orleans–based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and lawyer Miguel Estrada have been identified as a top contender.</p>

<p>Other possible replacements include federal courts of appeals judges Edith Hollan Jones, J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell and James Harvie Wilkinson III. </p>

<p>Anticipating a contentious battle, top Democratic members in Congress last week urged Bush to consult with them on any nominee. “The way to avoid the divisiveness and discord that occurred over past judicial nominations is through consensus and cooperation in the selection of future candidates,” the group said in a letter to the White House. </p>

<p>The Associated Press contributed to this report.</p>

2

<p>I only hope that when they pick the next conservative he or she too comes to see the light after a few years on the bench…</p>

3

<p>Uh oh…that sounded a tad religious.</p>

4

<p>What on earth is the purpose of a comment like that?</p>

5

<p>See the light meant comes to realize that the wholly conservative position is illogical. I knew I hated politics and had good reason not to get into these threads…</p>

6

<p>I wonder if the all-caring and open-minded dems will provide the same type of hearings to a Republican nominee as the mean, spiteful Republicans gave to Ginsburg:</p>

<p>(from Byron York of NRO)

</p>

7

<p>Well, they might nominate a judicial conservative, like David Souter or John Paul Stevens, rather than one of the flaming radicals, like Scalia, who would love to throw out 200 years of judicial history. ;)</p>

8

<p>That’s true, they might even go over to get Ted Kennedy’s list and start from there.</p>

9

<p>Its gonna be a long three months…</p>

<p>And lets see if we can get someone who won’t kick the country back to the 1800s…</p>

<p>Seeing what happened in the South and some Senators refusing to say, well, yeah we are sorry we didn’t do our best to stop lynching all those years, and those senators will help pick our next Justice</p>

<p>WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTURY FELLAS</p>

10

<p>All we have to do is nominate someone as far to the right as Ginsberg is to the left and they will balance each other out.</p>

11

<p>Sandra Day O’Connor has been on the Supreme Court for almost my entire life, but is still known as the pioneer for women on the bench. Just a thought.</p>

<p>The Court right now has some fairly deep divides. Regardless of political persuasion, I hope that the next justice will be able to bring some unity to the Court. IMO, that, more than stance on a set of issues, is the most important thing. The courts have an increasingly powerful role in our lives as more people turn to the legal system, but are less respected than they were years ago. In many ways, the rationale of a decision and its respect for opposing jurisprudence might be more important than outcome. Take the Kelo opinion - a deeply divided opinion - in which a lot of people take issue with the majority ruling because it does not set out any limits on government takings. I can’t help but think that a more united court could have produced the same result (taking allowed in New London) but appeased a lot of the fears of the dissenters by providing some sort of standard for lower courts to prevent abuses.</p>

<p>My two cents.</p>

12

<p>So, fundingfather, what decisions do you want changed?</p>

13

<p>two that come to mind are the most recent: medical marijuana and the ability for a large corporation to take away a person’s house because the town says it can.</p>

14

<p>interesting choices</p>

15

<p>What do you think will happen with that ill-advised decision on eminent domain? (Ariesathena–what do they say abaout that decision in law school?) I do not see how that decision can stand. It is ripe for abuse. Will Congress step in on this one?</p>

<p>For example, in my area, there is a mobile home park along a river in a nice small town with excellent schools in good commuting distance from a major city. The place is run down and isn’t a good use of some prime land. So, can’t some developer come in and with cooperation from the city, close down this park and build expensive condos there? Yikes, this does not seem like the American way…or maybe it is…</p>

16

<p>Honestly, what usually happens in a case as you describe above is that the land is owned by the trailer park operator. He kicks the “tenants” off, and then sells the land to the developer. The city doesn’t have to get involved at all. Happens all the time (or at least does where I live), and without eminent domain (in my state, where a case like that Connecticut could never arise because of state law. Didn’t need the Supreme Court decision one way or the other, as it is a legislative matter.)</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>fundingfather–:eek:-- we agree again!</p>

18

<p>All we need is an extremely right court justice to turn the clock back on civil rights and affirmative action in this country.</p>

19

<p>i seem to sense a strong presense of radical liberals on this thread…</p>

20

<p>you say that like its a bad thing</p>