Sandra Day O'Connor retires. now begins the fight!

Immediately? I imagine an anti-abortion activist filing some kind of case, but it would take a while to get to the SCOTUS. Even if the right to privacy was severely cut back and Roe v. Wade were overturned, SCOTUS couldn't outlaw abortion, only leave it up to congress and the states. Undoubtedly many states would rush to pass such bans but would Congress?

O'Connor wasn't the swing vote on Bush v Gore.

xpost.

FUCK, is right.

How TF could they do that? For minors perhaps, but adults?

Simple... just look at something like the Unborn Victims Of Violence Act. We've already set a precedent by putting in place a law makes killing a fetus the same as a standard homicide. A woman travels from Utah to California to get an abortion, and she comes home to face murder charges.

Not quite. There's still 5 more-or-less pro-choice votes: Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy. But Kennedy's squishy. So the most likely thing you get is states passing more and more restrictions, and Kennedy allowing more and more chipping away at Roe.

and the Daily Show textbook is still accurate, when it talks about people calling it a "litmus test:"

"...Because calling it an 'abortion test' would be too creepy."

Also talking about how it is now the apparent job of the judge to vote whichever way the president who appointed them would have thought.

Still, this begins a VERY long, and very harsh fight, where i'd put money down that all the shitty rhetoric we've heard so far this year(re: on judicial activists, terri schaivo, filibusters, etc) will be NOTHING compared to what's coming up. Be prepared for more Republicans going on christian reactionary tv to beg for God's Hand in helping them enact whatever they feel like.

I'm sure I'm not looking closely enough, but none of them seem, on paper, as hideous as some of the assholes occupying seats currently... aside from the skewing the balance.

It looks like two is the minimum we'll probably see. There could be even more than 2.

That said, my guess is also with Estrada, at least if Rove is in Bush's ear.

that said, i hope they let santorum run his mouth about removing the veil around people's homelives. if that isn't the uncrossable line between hands-off and hands-on conservativism, i don't know what could be at this point.

I dunno; i think both nominations are going to be fucked, since the people who're doing the nominating want it ALL, and fuck y'all who may not like that, etc.

I mean, that's perfectly rational to think that. But how many times do we have to restate the obvious?

So one must trust the States and the individual communities to be the moderate voice -- I mean there's no way California or New York S. or Washington or Oregon or Mass. or VT or NH would cave on some pissant ruling wrt contraception (interstate trade, rights of free passage) or even abortion.

Wait till the 'Quist dies on the bench. Then it's panic time...

yeah, but remember, we live in interesting times where those who previously made noise 'bout states rights don't particularly give a fuck about stopming on them now since they're in power. For example, Ashcroft going after the medical marijuana & death w/ dignity laws that Oregon passed thru multiple voter referenda over the last few years.

Except, of course, that it was Republican Orrin Hatch, then head of the Senate Judiciary Commitee, who suggested her to Clinton.

This did not play out so well when Sean Hannity was talking to Orrin Hatch, going over how they "didn't want another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on their hands".

turns out if you measure "activist judges" by the number of times each one has voted to overturn existing law, Clarence Thomas wins #1. Ginsburg is #9.

...In short, it's the liberal judges who are most conservative about upending established law, and the conservative judges who are most willing to overturn a Congressional majority by judicial edict.

yeah, but this isn't about what actually happened now, is it? they just wanna try to find any club they can use to beat down any politico not toeing the Party line.

Reagan detractors had been saying that same exact thing for 8 years in the 80s. As have Clinton detractors in the 90s.

Gonzalez makes sense given his relationship with Bush, although it would be surprising given the amount of recusal he'd have

Like father, like son. (one would hope?)

*I won't make any obvious Canadian pop punk jokes, I promise*

oh yes, how foolish. just like the 90 Senators that approved him. wait, why was it foolish again?

Democratic Leader Discounts a Filibuster
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, July 11 - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Monday that he did not foresee a filibuster against President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, but warned that Democrats would not hesitate to slow the confirmation if they found the process or the nominee objectionable.

"I don't anticipate a filibuster, but I am not going to shy away from making sure that we have adequate time to explain our position," Mr. Reid said as Senate leaders from both parties prepared to meet with Mr. Bush on Tuesday morning to discuss the vacancy.

Mr. Reid also said Democrats would try to cooperate in complying with the president's request that the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor be filled by Oct. 1. But he pointed out that Justice O'Connor has agreed to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed and that only six justices are needed for a quorum.

Mr. Reid's comments to reporters were part of the political maneuvering over the vacancy that accelerated as Congress returned from its Fourth of July recess, bringing lawmakers together for the first time since Justice O'Connor announced her intention to retire.

At the White House, Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman, portrayed Tuesday's breakfast meeting between the president and four Senate leaders as just one aspect of the administration's efforts to seek the thoughts of most senators both before and after a nomination is made.

"The president is not prejudging anything," Mr. McClellan said of the meeting. "He wants to hear what their views are and hear what they have to say as we move forward on a Supreme Court nominee."

In light of speculation about the possible retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist or other members of the court, Mr. McClellan said the administration was "prepared for additional vacancies if they should occur."

In addition to Mr. Reid, those scheduled to attend the White House meeting are Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee.

Mr. Frist said he intended to use the session to "urge my Democratic colleagues to keep overzealous outside interest groups at bay and not allow them to turn this nomination process into a circus."

"The nation deserves better," Mr. Frist said in a statement. "We should work toward a dignified hearing process that allows opportunity for fair questioning but moves toward confirmation - not confrontation."

Mr. McClellan said the president would welcome nominee suggestions from lawmakers, but did not say whether the president intended to share the identities of prospective candidates with the lawmakers. Mr. Reid and other Democrats have suggested that the president do so to weed out potential candidates who could stir strong opposition.

But Mr. Specter said he did not think Mr. Bush would provide a list of candidates. "Do I expect the president to give specific names to the four of us? No," Mr. Specter said. "I expect the president to give us a name when he is ready."

Mr. Reid said he would not consider the Tuesday session a failure if the president did not discuss individual candidates with the lawmakers. But he said any names should come from the White House because Democratic interest in an individual could lower support among Republicans. Mr. Reid said he also saw the meeting as an opportunity to establish ground rules on both sides.

"I want to have some idea of what he expects from us and give us an idea of what we can expect to see from him," Mr. Reid said.

Members of both parties say the outreach by the White House on the court opening has been impressive, but Republicans were quick to point out that it is voluntary.

"They are reaching out, both to Republicans and Democrats," said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "And I think it's nice that they do, although the Constitution doesn't require that."

He suggested that the president solicit either names of candidates or characteristics that lawmakers would like to see in a nominee.

"And who knows?" Mr. Grassley said in an interview on MSNBC. "Out of a meeting like that may come some new names that haven't popped up yet."

Mr. Specter said he thought practical matters like the scheduling of hearings could be addressed at the White House session. Lawmakers and senior aides say confirmation hearings are not likely to begin before Sept. 6, when Congress is scheduled to return from its August recess.

Mr. Specter said that he was remaining flexible and that the timetable would ultimately be determined by when the nomination was made.

Mr. Leahy joined Mr. Reid in expressing the view that the Senate should move deliberately. He said he personally intended to read all of the decisions and speeches of any nominee if the candidate is a sitting judge.

"I don't want to hurry the president into a precipitous choice," Mr. Leahy said, "but I don't want the Senate to be hurried into a precipitous decision."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071205/brownback.html

Brownback set to hold meeting with Gonzales
By Geoff Earle

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee, plans to meet this week with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Asked whether Gonzales would be a good nominee, Brownback replied, “I need to talk with him about his view of the Constitution to tell. That’s what I hope to do this week.”

Brownback rejected the notion that the meeting is premature: “If people are throwing names around, I think it’s timely to talk with individuals in the process.” President Bush has defended Gonzales, whom he called a great friend, after conservative groups spoke out against his possible nomination to the high court...

either way, shit will happen no matter what the rhetoric on any side is now.

Bush Listens to Senators on Court Nominees

by DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides listened to suggestions from Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday about candidates for filling a Supreme Court vacancy, but did not tip his hand about his favorites. Asked later how close he was to making a decision, Bush told reporters, "Closer today than I was yesterday."

"I'm going to be deliberate in the process," Bush told reporters later.

[...]

Asked about Democrats' objections to specific candidates said to be under consideration, McClellan said, "No individual should have veto power over a president's selection."

[...]

Specter took a shot at interest groups on the right and left, suggesting that they are "vastly overstating" their influence in the selection process and that, at times, their input is both "counterproductive and insulting."

He also expressed his desire that Bush consider nominating someone who is not currently part of the federal court system.

[...]

Frist, who said he used the morning meeting to insist that Democrats treat Bush's nominee with respect, said Bush and the lawmakers discussed both the confirmation process as well as the type of nominee the parties would like to see the president name.

"This consultative process is well under way," Frist said, adding that Bush and his advisers have contacted more than 60 senators, each member of the Judiciary Committee and that more than half or two-thirds of Democrats.

Oh yeah, and his wife wants him to appoint a woman. Are there any rightwing hispanic female appellate judges out there?

In any event, I think you misunderstand Reid's statement, which combines several of the tactics he has somewhat successfully employed thus far - it sets the agenda by defining the Dems before the other side does so, and couches a threat in the veil of make-nice. He's telling Bush in no uncertain terms that the filibuster is an option ("adequate time to explain our position" is a genteel way of describing a ten-letter procedure that begins with an "f"), except he's doing it in a fashion that suggests to the public that the Dems prefer to work across the aisle, a prerequisite to fighting, and that places the blame for any confrontation on Bush, because he picked someone that made the Dems do something they didn't want to do. You don't allow the other side an opportunity to suggest that you planned to attack any offer they made. And you don't sell the American public on how extreme a nominee is without first suggesting that you'd be amenable to the majority of choices.

(xposts)

Yeah I interpret that similarly, but the GOP spin will be "They PROMISED not to filibuster etc."

oh yes, let's drop an effective tactic because it will make the GoPee look like pussies when they try to respond

"This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works."

I hope you're right, gabbneb, but I still fear the longwayaround to capitulation.

Re: Clinton. I disagree. Nixon, Reagan and Bush were worse.

The Reaganites dreamed of enacting as much Reaganism as Clinton did.

Hispanic Judges on Dems' List for Bush

By DEB RIECHMANN and DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Top Senate Democrats floated the names of potential candidates for the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a meeting with President Bush, describing them as the type of nominee who could avoid a fierce confirmation battle.

Several officials familiar with the discussion said Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ed Prado of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of whom are Hispanic, were among the names mentioned as Bush met with key lawmakers from both parties to discuss the first high court vacancy in 11 years.

[...]

The meeting came at a time when the president is under pressure from conservatives who want a court that will reverse precedent on abortion rights, affirmative action, homosexual rights and other issues. Some conservatives have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is close to Bush and frequently mentioned as a potential candidate, questioning whether he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 court ruling that gave women the constitutional right to an abortion.

For their part, Democrats are urging Bush to seek a "consensus candidate," one who would win confirmation without a bitter struggle. But they have relatively little leverage in purely numerical terms. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and can confirm any of Bush's picks unless Democrats mount a filibuster. The White House would need 60 votes to overcome that.

Democrats have done extensive research on dozens of potential replacements for O'Connor and the names of Sotomayor and Prado have emerged, along with others, as among those viewed as acceptable. Leahy suggested the names in the meeting, although Reid's presence signaled his approval.

According to an official government Web site, Sotomayor was named a U.S. District Court judge in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, the president's father, and confirmed in August 1992. President Clinton nominated her for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, and she was confirmed in 1998.

President Reagan nominated Prado to a seat on the U.S. District Court in 1984. The current President Bush picked him for his current post in 2003, and he was confirmed on a vote of 97-0.

Frist praised Bush for reaching out to Democrats, saying that what the administration is doing "is pretty unprecedented if you look back in history. He is reaching out aggressively. He has contacted — he or his staff have contacted over 60 United States senators, each of the members of the Judiciary Committee, over half or two-thirds of the Democrats."

Democrats said that was fine — as far as it went.

"This certainly is a good first or second step," Reid said at a news conference outside the White House. "This process needs to move forward. And I was impressed with the fact the president said it would; there will be more meetings, consultations."

Officials familiar with the meeting said Reid was more blunt in private, telling Bush he didn't want to wind up reading about the president's eventual pick in the newspaper without having had a chance to offer his views beforehand.

[...]

Bush and Senate Republicans have said they hope to have O'Connor's replacement confirmed and sworn in before the court convenes for its new term in October.

it's not like any of their suggestions will be taken seriously, of course, but it's another showing of an attempt at good faith by one side.

but, hey, they found a conservative female hispanic appellate(sp?) judge, one even put first in place by Bush I. Color me surprised.

But as for skeptics who point out that presiding over a TV small-claims court is worlds away from sitting on the highest court in the land, Vonnegut answered: "There is no difference. She refers to the law again and again. American law is American law."

hahaha

Rehnquist yells at nearby reporters, who're hovering vulture-like: "I AIN'T GOING ANYWHERE, BITCHEZ! SUCK ON DEEZ DROOPY NUTZ!"

another point in her favor for Bush - she's a Southern Comforter