DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, RR: 81 Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Not likely. She has serious reasons and has already tendered her resignation to the President. I don't think you can unwind that action.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38599 posts, RR: 79 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 765 times:
I don't know. I can't recall the last time there was a bi-partisan group of Senators asking a Supreme Court judge to stay on after announcing retirement.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 764 times:
Doesn't really matter if they trust him or not. He was elected, thus get's the choice. It's quite pathetic (if true) that we have senators engaged in this kind of activity.
If I had to write a book about these recent "left" activities, I'd call it "101 Ways to Circumvent the Political Process When the Voters Have Cleary Showed That They Don't Trust You With the Senate, the House OR the Presidency"!
If you interpret the far left's activities as anything other than a last desperate attempt to hold onto the one part of the process (judicial) where they can force their minority views on the system, then you aren't paying attention or you just don't care.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38599 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 758 times:
Quoting Hamfist (Reply 3): If I had to write a book about these recent "left" activities
Scroll back up, read the article and back to me.
Two of these Senators are Republicans. Members of the President's own party.
This is hardly a 'leftist' coupe.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 735 times:
Quoting Hamfist (Reply 3): It's quite pathetic (if true) that we have senators engaged in this kind of activity.
Two are republicans, two are democrats. This might just be more than some "leftist conspiracy". Also, why do you question that its true? Is the Associated Press article not good enough for you?
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 711 times:
I doubt O'Conner will ever reconsider for a number of reasons as already cited. She has served with honor and good balanced service on the court for over 22 years and in public service most of her adult life.
Today on the FoxNews website (yea, I know, but I like to see other views) had an article that a significant majority of those agreed to the question if there should be an age limit for members of the Supreme Court. I also agree with this, and it is common practice in many states for all levels of their judicary. If there were to be an age limit, like 75 on all federal judges, it would mean more turnover on the court, fewer issues of someone dying while serving, more opening opportunities for each President or their term, which may cause a more balanced court.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 699 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 4): Two of these Senators are Republicans. Members of the President's own party.
This is hardly a 'leftist' coupe
Collins and Snowe are VERY moderate Republicans, and probably more along the lines of conservative Democrats. Landrieu is very much the same way.
If the vote is close, it will be Sens. like Snowe and Collins (Gordon Smith of Oregon and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island also comes to mind) and a few others could make the difference between rejection and confirmation.
As for putting a blanket age limit on the SCOTUS, that's not a great idea. Kind of like forcing pilots to retire at 60. The point is, several are perfectly capable of serving in their full capacity into their late 80's.
Put yourself in their shoes...if you were 80, on the Supreme Court which is clearly a very high honor and in excellent health for that age, how would you feel if you were forced out purely based solely on your age, and not your ability to perform your duties? While I agree that the Court should be both male and female and also include minorities, putting an age limit on them is foolish.
As for O'Connor rescinding her retirement, don't count on it. Rehnquist today insisted he will continue to serve as long as possible, in other words he plans on dying in office. If Bush wants an arch conservative on the court, he better do it with this pick, while he has a 55-45 advantage in the Senate. He won't after Jan. 2007, the way things are going now.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1993 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 690 times:
Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 8): Put yourself in their shoes...if you were 80, on the Supreme Court which is clearly a very high honor and in excellent health for that age, how would you feel if you were forced out purely based solely on your age, and not your ability to perform your duties?
Well... old age might be the only explaination to the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain two weeks ago...
Did you know Taylor Swift has a STAR to BNA named after her? No, I'm not kidding.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 681 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 1): Not likely. She has serious reasons and has already tendered her resignation to the President. I don't think you can unwind that action.
Not that I think it matters (because I don't think she'll revoke the resignation) but O'Conner's resignation said it was effective upon confirmation of her replacement.
'Fly - trust is - for lack of a better term - irrelevent here. Bush is PotUS, O'Connor tendered her resignation, I don't believe it can be refused, it's Bush's call on a successor. Now - these senators have a process by which they can weigh in on the nomination and confirmation of a successor. It's worked for a couple hundred years . . . it will keep working.
And I'm rather impressed that they are a bi-partisan group. I am rather scared any time I see Barbara Boxer's name associated with anything however.
I would just fine with O'Connor staying on as Chief Justice as well.
Further, I'm almost pleasantly surprised to see that "Advice and Consent" appears to be working - at least for now.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29367 posts, RR: 61 Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 667 times:
Hopefully Scalia or Thomas would be nominated to replace Renquist when the time comes.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 661 times:
Phew!
For a minute I thought this thread was going to be about the demise of the legendary "suntanned" crooner and butt of Morecambe and Wise jokes, Des O'Connor.
Then I saw it was about a US politician (different name spelling) that none of us Europeans have heard of! Sorry, mybad
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7265 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 641 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 12): Hopefully Scalia or Thomas would be nominated to replace Renquist when the time comes.
Unless you're referring to the Chief Justice position, there still has to be 9 justices on the bench; someone outside the SC still has to nominated, confirmed & sworn in to replace the vacanct seat(s).
As far as the position of Chief Justice is concerned; I believe (someone w/some time on their hands can feel free to recheck the Constitution on this process to verify) that when the present CJ steps down, the first in line for the position is usually the next senior justice (based on seniority not age) which presently is Justice Stevens. If Stevens turns the position down (in case he decides to retire, after all, he's presently 85), then either the next senior justice (Scalia in this case) would either be offered the position or another existing SC justice would be nominated.
[Edited 2005-07-15 15:40:22]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
Dvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 629 times:
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 14): As far as the position of Chief Justice is concerned; I believe (someone w/some time on their hands can feel free to recheck the Constitution on this process to verify) that when the present CJ steps down, the first in line for the position is usually the next senior justice (based on seniority not age) which presently is Justice Stevens. If Stevens turns the position down (in case he decides to retire, after all, he's presently 85), then either the next senior justice (Scalia in this case) would either be offered the position or another existing SC justice would be nominated.
That is only true in the interim. Chief Justices have sometimes been brand new appointees to the court, e.g. William Howard Taft, and other Presidents have bypassed justices with greater seniority when choosing a chief, especially if the senior justice was appointed by the other party. A good example was when Rehnquist became Chief Justice. Byron White had been on the Supreme Court a decade longer than Rehnquist, and Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, etc., had seniority. Reagan bypassed all of them to promote Rehnquist.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7265 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 614 times:
Thanks for the clarification/explanation Dvk. I will try to remember that the next time this subject comes about.
As far as Justice O'Connor's retirement is concerned. Since she made it clear that she was stepping down due to family reasons (mainly to spend more time to care for her ailing husband); it is highly unlikely she would reconsider returning. As stated previously, she has stated that she will still sit on the bench until her successor is confirmed.
Side item here: Not to be anal, but since there have been at least 2 or 3 threads covering the Justice O'Connor and the Supreme Court; it too much to ask that you spell her last name correctly? O'Connor. I've noticed 2 or 3 O'Conners (including the thread title) on nearly every thread dealing with this subject, including this one.
Trust me, spelling a last name like that is not too difficult. I could see where people could trip up w/spelling Reinquist or even mixing Ginsberg ('87 nominee who was rejected because he once smoked marijuana) with (Justice Ruth Bader) Ginsburg but O'Connor is a much more common name.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7265 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 594 times:
No problem, 'Fly. BTW, my earlier comment wasn't directed soley towards you; others were making a similar typo mistake.
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 17): I could see where people could trip up w/spelling Reinquist
Oops, my bad. Should be Rehnquist.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
Sponsor Message: 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38599 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11436 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
