« Yes on Referendum C&D Has Big Bucks | Main | Colorado Officials Speak Out On O'Connor »

Comments

jj

bye, bye woman's right to choose

life@isgood.com

Yeah, God forbid we put up judges that protect those that can't protect themselves.

Susan B

now we'll really see about which party is trying to put forth "activist judges."

jon

Mmmmm, activist judges.

learnedhand

the story I heard about OConnor being appointed to the AZ Ct of Appeals in 1979 was that she was a threat to the incumbent governor of AZ at the time. She was wildly popular and already quite an accomplished politician so to get her out of the way politically he nominated her to the court.....

this is an appointment worth paying attention to! a moderate leaving actually changes the balance of the court

unfortunatley for Bush he has no political capital whatsoever, he's like the anti-midas - everything he touches turns to stone. if he hadn't overplayed his hand on issue after issue since his reelection he might be able to ram through a far right idealogue, that will be a much tougher road now given his track record since reelection and his low poll numbers

he pretty much has to nominate a woman... perhaps an hispanic woman?

Donald E. L. Johnson

Now we'll see about that nuclear option. Will the Dems live up to their end of the deal? Doubt it. How many saw the ad on TV last week (FOX, I think), warning the public that no matter who Bush nominates, the Dems will attack.

If Bush nominates a known social issues far right hard liner, I hope the Dems attack and filibuster.

brio

As the least conservative of the Court's conservative majority, O'Connor has for a long time set the limit on how far the Court to the right the court would go. I agree Bush has lost capital, but he still has the numbers in the Senate to get confirmation of someone considerably to the right of O'Connor. This is far more significant than a Rehnquist resignation. And, because of the abortion issue, it could be a very bitter fight with a lot of public attention and interest - we may learn a lot about what kind of senator K.S. is going to be during the next few months.

Remember those stories several years back about O'Connor commenting in a social context around the time of Bush v. Gore that Bush had to win, so she could resign? Was it ever sorted out whether that was truth or fiction?

brio

As the least conservative of the Court's conservative majority, O'Connor has for a long time set the limit on how far the Court to the right the court would go. I agree Bush has lost capital, but he still has the numbers in the Senate to get confirmation of someone considerably to the right of O'Connor. This is far more significant than a Rehnquist resignation. And, because of the abortion issue, it could be a very bitter fight with a lot of public attention and interest - we may learn a lot about what kind of senator K.S. is going to be during the next few months.

Remember those stories several years back about O'Connor commenting in a social context around the time of Bush v. Gore that Bush had to win, so she could resign? Was it ever sorted out whether that was truth or fiction?

Mario Nicolais

Three cheers for Justice Gonzales!!!

WhitewaterDem

The Supreme Court vacanies (more are sure to come) will purposely--and conveniently-- put the real issues ie Iraq, the economy, fuel prices, etc on the national media back burner.

Because it will distract the media from these and other negative or revealing issues about the Bush administration or legislation, be sure the White House will drag out this process. Plus, it will abuse this opportunity to attack Democrats and promote the Bush agenda.

The lapdog press will echo the Bush propaganda because national media works mostly like this: Businesses who back the Bush agenda, threaten to pull advertising if the press gets too pro-Democrat (remember advertising makes the world go around). And reporters and editors are boycotted from governemnt access if stories become too anti-administration. And remember the FCC? One false move and media conglomerates get unfavorable legislation.

As media consumers (advertising rates, hence revenue, depends on the number of readers or viewers,) we, the average Joe and Jill citizen, will have to put the media to task to report what's really happening to our county politically.

The Supreme Court is just another piece of the war plan as extreme Bush conservatives, in the name of religion, ever so slowly overthrow our government.

learnedhand

"If Bush nominates a known social issues far right hard liner, I hope the Dems attack and filibuster."

Agreed!

Sorry but the public is against the "nuclear" option, look at the poll numbers, if public opinion had been with him Frist would have pulled the trigger... but he blinked and now the fillibuster is on the table. If the public thought the fillibuster was appropriate for circuit court appointees I don't see how that would change at all in regards to SCOTUS nominees, especially considering the clear precedent for fillibuster of soctus nominees.

Bush might still have the "numbers" but he has proved ineffectual at holding his caucus together throughout this term. Despite all of the administrations cries of Democratic obstructionism the simple fact of the matter is they have the numbers, if they could hold their caucus together they can pretty much do what they want. Knowing Bush he'll probably nominate a far right idealogoue but given the current political climate and his inability to hold a caucus together I don't think he has much chance of getting someone like that confirmed.

brio

L.H. - he doesn't need to get a far-right ideologue appointed (although bless him, he's likely to try, and then the Dem's get to filibuster). All he needs to do is get someone right of Kennedy, and that he can do that with ease. Of course, if he gets a far-righter appointed, and the repubs when the White House in '08, then we wind up with a court as conservative as the one in the 20s.

learnedhand

totally agree Brio....

Phoenix Rising

Back out of the frying pan... I agree with many of the comments so far.

This is likely to be a media circus, though I'm not sure O'Connor really thought about it in those terms; she wanted to retire back in Bush's 1st term, but I think the election decision caused her to re-think that; now she's safe in retiring in his first totally legitimate term. It remains to be seen whether this will push DSM, Plame, and other issues off the table - with Rove firing away at Hagel of all people, the White House can't assume everyone will take their eye off the other balls.

My prediction is that Bush goes with a relative unkown on the far right; he's too stubborn to pick a consensus candidate, and if he picks someone with enough of a judicial record, or someone with a high profile in, say, the Federalist Society, the Dems will be sure to yell "extreme circumstances". Gonzales, as horrid a thought as that is, might be another Souter - he was a relative moderate on the Texas court - and that will likely end his chances if Bush goes to the far right. I doubt the Democrats will be satisfied with anything less than an O'Connor act-alike; as People For the American Way president Ralph Neas states, this is the appointment that could send the court back to the 1920's.

Get ready for a rough ride ahead.

brio

Phoenix - hold on to this slender consolation, it will take at least two appointments to get us back to the twenties; this one can only take us back about 40 years.

Mario Nicolais

Seriously, why not a new justice those of us in Colorado have gotten to know a little. Bush couldn't make a better choice than the 10th Circuit's own Judge Michael McConnell.

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/judges.cfm?part=2&ID=18

jp

I'm all for Gonzales, Mario. Moves the court to the right (somewhat) while retaining some semblence of consensus. And no way O'Connor gets replaced by anybody who is both white and male.

brio

Actually, McConnell gets affirmed in a heartbeat. He's plenty conservative, but not over the top and has been a consistently indpendent thinker (the right's version of Stevens instead of Brennan or Marshall). The scuttlebut is that the right is so determined to have someone totally in its camp, that McConnell will be rejected as too independent.

learnedhand

I've heard both republican's and democrats complaining about Gonzales today, seems to me he must be the right guy for the job then.

ziik

I love how the liberals use the phrase "take us BACK 40 years like its a bad thing." God forbid we get judges on the court who actually just interpret the constitution as opposed to making new laws from the bench.

And oh by the way, the American people decisively favored George W. Bush in 2004. The American People elected 54 Republican Senators to the US Senate. The American People have also elected a majority of Republicans in the House and a majority of Governors.

I think that is plenty of a mandate to put a real conservative on the bench without any bellyaching from the left. For Chrissakes win some fricking elections and then you get to choose who is on the bench. It's a simple system we have.

ziik

amen Mario

carefulwhatyouaskfor

"God forbid we get judges on the court who actually just interpret the constitution as opposed to making new laws from the bench."

you mean like Bush v. Gore?

ziik

hey carefulwhatyouaskfor every single recount done by every single news organization using every imaginable standard had Bush defeating Gore in Florida so I guess it's about time you get over it.

History

Exactly. For any doubters, here's the details:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

Phoenix Rising

Continue reading, History and zilk.

The two standards that would have gotten Bush a win were Bush's and Gore's. The standard the Florida Supreme Court ordered would have resulted in a Gore win, as would most other standards.

Additionally, this isn't about the recount results, it's about the decision of the Court. And that decision was ridiculous on its face.

That a recount would offer worse standards of equality than the initial count was wrong; if the recount was unfair on the face of the 14th Amendment, then so was the vote.

That the Court's decision was non-binding was wrong, and unprecidented.

That the Court even stayed the recount by justifying that Bush would be irrevocably hurt by counting the votes was wrong.

Justice Ginsberg had it right: "I dissent."

The comments to this entry are closed.