Is Justess O'Connor having a conscience attack?

[Doctor_J]

I remember in 2000 she was quoted as saying she was waiting for a GOP president so she could retire. Now it's 4 yrs later and she's still in the robe.

You think she realizes that if she packs it in that Smirk will nominate another clone of Fat Tony and Slappy, and that the country couldn't withstand that? Strange...

[aquart]

1. Conscience attack? No.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. O'Connor is a coup leader, she seems pleased with herself

I think she should be in prison, personally.

[libertad]

29. Is there some evidence that she has a conscience? n/t

[HydroAddict]

2. "Fat Tony and Slappy"

- ROFLMAO!!!

[OneBlueSky]

3. well, you have to admit that it's pretty amazing . . .

that not a single SC justice has resigned during Bush's first term . . . either we've been extremely lucky, or those nearing retirement see him for what he is and are hoping for someone with a brain to take over come next January . . .

[Doctor_J]

4. That's what I mean

I thought the old repugs on the bench were going to step down and let * pack the court with some young wingers who could chisel away at the constitution till my grandkids are wrinkled. Something has made them reticent.

[tedoll78]

5. This is the opportunity of a lifetime.

Imagine O'Connor getting tired of it after we win in November.

And imagine Rehnquist croaking then.

Imagine Stevens & Ginsburg stepping-down to give-way to younger, healthier jurists.

We could potentially end-up with a 6-1-2 Liberal-Moderate-Conservative court!

Opportunities like this don't come around very often.

[Pushed To The Left]

11. Yes!!!

That would be a dream come true! I'm going to be euphoric if we win in November!

[turnhardleft]

15. Welcome to DU!

Me too!

[DieboldMustDie]

12. Supreme Court Justices...

have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is likely to still be in Republican hands next year. I think moderate appointees are the best we can hope for in the short term, though that would still be a big improvement, especially if Rehnquist goes.

[noonwitch]

19. Question: When Renquist steps down, who determines the next CJ?

Do the supremes vote on it? Does the President choose? Does the Senate confirm?

[Atlant]

21. The President appoints the CJ. Need not be a current court J.(NT)

[no_hypocrisy]

22. So theoretically, if * wins in November, Roy Moore could be CJ, bumped

ahead of Tony Scalia.

10 Commandments for everyone!

[Atlant]

23. Yeah, theoretically. Abe Fortas was the last attempted "bump". (NT)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. no_hypocrisy...OMFG! that is the SCARIEST fucking thought

[NewJeffCT]

17. well

I don't wish anybody dead, no matter how evil they are (though, maybe a little pain for Scalia...)

However, I would be extremely happy if any of the conservative justices on the court were gone if we win in November...

[Atlant]

20. *NO* liberal will be confirmed by the Senate.

Take it to the bank.

Atlant

[adadem]

26. Unless

the Dems take the Senate back. Long shot but people including pugs are pissed.

[Atlant]

28. Even then.

As you'll recall, the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, have
been very effective at holding off Democratic court appointees
even when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate.

Look for the return of "Blue Cards" and all the other horseshit
methods that they perfected over the years. The "fillibuster
will once again be a prefectly acceptable tool, too, so long
as it's Republicans who are wielding it. It's only unfair when
Democrats use it.

Atlant

[Bandit]

30. You think a Republican Senate would allow it?

:shrug: We need more than the presidency.

[lcordero]

6. I doubt that it is the same republican party that she was a part

of years ago.

[cardlaw]

7. After Bush v. Gore...

she knows she can't retire. If the quote you mentioned had not surfaced, I think she would have retired. If she had left, her vote in Bush would look suspect. She has enough respect for the integrity of the SCOTUS not to give even a scintilla of impropriety or partisanship.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. None of the Justices want their legacy to be 'Bush v. Gore'

During early 2001, Renquist, Scalia, Thomas and the others who appointed * were running about giving speeches which seemed to be designed to justify their actions (and hopefully restore their tarnished reputations). If one of the Infamous Five quits during *'s first (and hopefully only) term, he or she knows that history will record them as part of a conspiracy to appoint * to be president. I think they're praying for *'s re-election, which they'll avoid like the plague. If * is re-elected (or elected, as we DUers know), then a Justice can retire to have a successor named by a president chosen by the people (notwithstanding BBV), and not by a president who they had appointed.

JMHO.

[Arugula Latte]

33. The Felonious Five Really Revealed Themselves in 2000, No?

They might as well have pulled up their black robes and taken a dump on the Constitution in full public view. Their legal reputations will belong on the trash heap of history. Their twisted, convoluted language in Bush v. Gore revealed that they are partisan hacks. No one in the future will respect them as jurists.

[RandomUser]

8. It's because of the 2000 aftermath

In the aftermath of the 2000 fiasco, the Supremes were taken to task in the media with charges of possible partisanship and their decisions and integrity were questioned. I think they realized that they needed to wait for undisputed election results in 2004 before retiring. This is not because of misgivings about Bush, but rather for the reputation and public image of integrity of the Supreme Court.

You can't very well have the SCOTUS choose the president and then have that same president, now viewed as possibly illegitimate, nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. It reeks of undue interference and corruption of the balance and separation of powers.

Even if Bush hadn't made a mess of things like he has, I believe they STILL would not have retired until after undisputed election results. They got burned really badly in 2000, with the nonpartisan objectivity/integrity of the court and their judgment slammed in the media. They're holding off on retiring because they're either looking out for their own reputations, or sincerely concerned about the integrity of the constitutional system and balance of powers (which depends in part on the respect and image of objectivity and relative nonpartisanship accorded it by the public, whether rightly so or not).

But I don't doubt that once 2004 is over and there's an undisputedly elected president, hopefully not Bush, they would feel free to retire, whoever the president is.

Considering that no one retired in this term and the age of some of them, it's a virtual certainty that at least one of them will retire in the next term. Rehquist and O'Connor are both extremely likely to retire. And they would have no qualms about doing it if Bush is still president.

O'Connor is not waiting for Bush to leave. She's waiting for undisputed election results and the primature of legitimacy to end the controversy and restore the court's reputation for nonpartisanship, and her own as well.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

10. You beat me to it, RU

and expressed my reasoning a lot better than I ever could.

[Bunny]

13. Well, they can wait till after the next election,

but if they want to restore their integrity, such as it is, they better hope a Dem gets elected. If * is allowed to remain in Al Gore's house for four more years, they will still be tarnished. He would never have had the advantage of being the incumbent without their meddling into the democratic process.

They'd have to wait till '08 to retire. Their legitimacy and integrity will never be restored if they retire during, God forbid, a second term for *.

Edited to add: you f*cked up big time Sandy, your reputation is forever tarnished, and now you can live with your mistake!

[tom_paine]

18. Excellent point most well made

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:toast:

I believe you've hit the nail right on the head, sir.

[adadem]

27. Right on the button n/t

[KharmaTrain]

14. Great Points...Here's One More...

Random put it very well as to the angst this court carries about the 2000 fiasco, and this leads to why I think Justice O'Connor stays on.

As someone else posted, this isn't the same GOOP she joined as a Goldwater Girl in the 50's/60's. Her major appeal when Raygun named her was her moderate positions on most issues and her high legal standards. While I'm not sold on how high those standards are, she's proved to be a very logical and rational voice in her years. I will miss her when she retires, even for her ugly vote installing the fraud. I think she looks over to the right and isn't too happy with what she's seeing.

She has to have been strong-armed repeatedly over the years by Big Tony and Renqhuist O'Sullivan, but her models have been Douglas, Powell and Stevens...breeds that stood for independence over partisanship. I think this started to work into her thinking.

Add to this the release of the reports of her possible retirement (which came out in the final days of the 2000 campaign, if I'm not mistaken) was definitely not of her design...and now looks very much like another Rove leak to help her find the door. I think she's sticking in both their eyes by staying on.

To the dreams of a Liberal court, I'd prefer one of moderation...of jurists reading the constitution without partisan blinders (I know almost impossible) that put the rights of the individual (speech, movement, health and education) supreme...not the corporates and special interests. I'd be curious to hear her take on Fat Tony's duck hunting vacation with Unka Dickie.

I think she's a closet Repugnican...driven into hiding by the Neo-Con tidal wave and biding her time, like many of us are, until these goons overplay their hand. That's occured and now we all have to clean up the mess.

[City Lights]

16. It musta been that nasty letter I sent to her

after her disastrous vote. I told her all the accomplishments she'd made in life would be forever overshadowed by that one vote. I also told her my daughter had to do a book report on a famous person and had been considering reading a book on her, but after the _bush v. Gore vote she decided to read about Amelia Earhart instead. (My daughter planned on reading about Earhart all along, but I thought this little white lie added some spice to the letter. :evilgrin: )




Edited for typos.

[jburton]

31. LOL

I just think that's funny!

[John_H]

32. LOL! no conscience--she'll wait for a "clean" election