mcdreamylover

O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago



WASHINGTON - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly.


"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

Little more than an hour later, Bush praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." He said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret" the laws.

sick little jag

Oh man. We are screwed.

alli balli

Yeah, this is pretty scary. It would be one thing if it were Rehnquist retiring, because then Bush would just replace one right-wing ideologue with another. O'Connor, however, was pretty much all over the place, and we all know exactly what type she'll be replaced with.

Drekkan

Give me Kozinski - the guy is a traditional (as opposed to neo) conservative, with a strong trackrecord on privacy and free speech. He is also quite funny and direct in his opinions and law review pieces.

amusic20

I was really surprised when I saw that she'd retired; it's very odd, because usually Supreme Court Justices keep their jobs until they die. And now that O'Connor has left, there is a problem for we women....

Avatar

O'Connor, from the little I know, seemed like a sensible justice who made her rulings on the merits of the case and not a political standpoint (shock! horror!) ... more justices like her's needed on any level of any judicial system.

To me, the hallmark of a good judge is that you can read his/her verdicts and not know if it's written by a liberal or a conservative but just know that you're reading a good judicial verdict. O'Connor was one of those justices. The new one probably won't be.

poetry23

I'm moving to Canada...this ends it.

If the new attorney general is appointed we might as well forget about the democrats gaining power ever again....She was actually a judge, not a political machine.

In Fair Verona

Yep. This is going to suck. O'Connor was such a landmark woman and judge, one who I think brought a lot more consideration out towards women in cases from the other judges. Why not four more years, Sandra? Just in case...


Heh. Is it just me or could 'faithfully' be taken two ways?

barbeegurl00

That's a little surprising... I always liked her.

Miss_Priss

crapity crap crap

My surpreme court justice wish list:

1)Woman- I think 8 men and 1 woman is just sad for our country. We need a women's perspective and one is just way too outnumbered because a lot of issues cooming to the court will be or are gender based issues.
2) Not conservative or at least not TOO conservative. I hope that in the least they'll be mid way and will (like o'conner) base his/her decision on the merit of the issue.
3) DO NOT OVERTURN ROE V. WADE (if they do....ooooooh will i be pissed off)

A.Film.By.Tiff

Sadness

wanderer78

I thought the same thing when I read that quote.

Drekkan

First off, you're going to get a conservative of some stripe. He has the votes in the House/Senate, and he has the peoples' support. So he's going to have a conservative justice. The only difference is whether you have a neo-conservative or a true conservative - of the two the second is much preferable. The problem with a lot of the women coming up is that they are extremely conservative, and in a neo-conservative sense.

Furthermore, many of the judges he'll consider - and, from what I can tell, all the real female candidates - at some level oppose Roe v Wade. The problem is that it's based on incredibly shaky jurisprudence. There is no right to reproductive privacy, and it can easily be claimed (within the law) whether or not it's a States' Rights issue. Some opponents oppose Roe not because they oppose abortion - but because they fear that they're changing the Constitution without an amendment.

Finally, while Roe may be important, I have the feeling that there are many more important issues coming up. At most Roe would cause a concentration of the abortions taking place to certain states - though more rather then less would approve them. Furthermore, the ruling effects about 1/2 of the population. However, there are currently issues that effect the entire nation, and in rather insidious ways. I'd take a fierce advocate of privacy and 1st amendment rights who was against Roe then the reverse.

Jeny

I guess I'm a little late to respond, but when I heard about her retirement on the news I started to tear up about. I know I'm probably a dork, but it just broke my heart.

Lexis

Roe effects more than 1/2 of the population. In the first instance, it will effect the men whose partners are pregnant, then those who provide abortions, then wider society when we end up with thousands mor unwanted babies. We will also probably see an increase in women being admitted to hospital after attempting to self-abort.

Abortion is not an issue that should just be thrown in with other women's issues. As Hillary Clinton said, "Women's rights are human rights."