Hoo boy, folks....now it's on. Pres. Bush vs. the Dem minority. Will this be the "special circumstance" that leads to the Dems breaking the filibuster compromise? Supreme Court Justice O'Connor retiring First female member of court; key swing vote on abortion, death penalty BREAKING NEWS Updated: 10:55 a.m. ET July 1, 2005 WASHINGTON - 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. President Bush later announced he would speak about O'Connor's retirement at 11:15 a.m. ET. O’Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court’s next term in October, or when 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. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/
Watch the fight begin, this should be interesting, lets see if the Democrats can stall and filibuster this for the next 3 years.
you know it SDM! :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb: :rofl: :thumb:
If Bush proposes that Fascist Alberto Gonzalez (virtual President of the Patriot Act fan club), I hope they filibuster for decades.
Is it too much to expect a president to appoint an judge based on his impartiality rather than his political views? Judges should be moderate and apolitical. I say leave politics to the Congress and select judges based on how little they are influenced by politics. Off the subject, but I also think that supreme court judges should be retired at the age of 75. Lifetime appoitments are hogwash. We deserve justices that are not elderly, infirm, or . . . shall we say, a little daffy in their old age.
Exactly. There are rights and wrongs. People who say otherwise are lying to themselves in order to maximize their self-importance and happiness.
I fully agree.......political views are not the litmus test here. The first question should be...."Are you a Judicial Activist? Do you have a habit of making new law from the bench?" If so, bye bye. I want a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Public USE means Public Use.
I would say his dream judge is a moderate if he practices pragmatism, fair play, and impartiality in his interpretations of the constitution. A "strict" constitutionalist might be too dogmatic. Eighteenth century lawmakers could not envision every 21st century situation. A justice must be broad-minded and flexible enough to reach an effective modern interpretation at times. Balance and equilibrium is the key.
