Supreme Court retirements

[Keystone Phil]

The term ends on Monday. What do you think will happen?

[Jake]

Rehnquist and O'Connor will both announce retirement

[??????????]

Hopefully the 5 that made that horrible decision will.

[So the Heroes Fall]

only Rehnquist will.

[TX_1824]

only Rehnquist will.

agreed

[Ebowed]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

[A18]

None, unfortunately.

The court will announce, however, that the Constitution has changed, and that government Ten Commandments displays are now illegal.

[True Federalist]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

Hopefully Bush names her as the next Chief Justice (Unlikely, but mainly because of her age.)

Rhenquist is the only likely retiree and he'll probably go on Senior Status rather than an outright resignation if he does choose to go.

[WalterMitty]

what about john danforth for chief justice?

[A18]

what about john danforth for chief justice?

How about shut the hell up for chief justice?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Mike Fisher to be appointed to fill a seat on the Supreme Court. He is a former State Rep., former State Senator, former state Attorney General, 2002 GOP nominee for Governor and currently a federal judge from western PA.

Chances of him being nominated: Slim to none.

[Citizen James]

what about john danforth for chief justice?

I wouldn't object, but he's probably too old (68) to get serious consideration.   Bush is likely to want someone who will hold on for decades.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

What?  Why would you want that?  I don't want an ideologue.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Mike Fisher to be appointed to fill a seat on the Supreme Court. He is a former State Rep., former State Senator, former state Attorney General, 2002 GOP nominee for Governor and currently a federal judge from western PA.

Chances of him being nominated: Slim to none.

Mike Fisher? Ugh! What a super zero he is!

I hate how people how make his campaigning the issue for everything with him. He was a weak candidate. We all know that. However, that doesn't mean he's not qualified or doesn't deserve what he gets appointed to/runs for.

[Keystone Phil]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

What?  Why would you want that?  I don't want an ideologue.

Unless they're liberal, right?

[Peter]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

What?  Why would you want that?  I don't want an ideologue.

She is incredibly intellectually inconsistent. How getting an abortion can be protected by substantive due process, but having gay sex isn't is frankly well beyond me.

[A18]

Hopefully O'Conner retires.

What?  Why would you want that?  I don't want an ideologue.

She is incredibly intellectually inconsistent. How getting an abortion can be protected by substantive due process, but having gay sex isn't is frankly well beyond me.

Maybe because substantive due process is made up crap for banning laws the Supreme Court happens to not like.

By the way, I thought O'Conner joined the majority in that Texas sodomy case.

[Peter]

By the way, I thought O'Conner joined the majority in that Texas sodomy case.

She did, but it was a concurrence in the judgement. She would have overturned the Texas statute on grounds of equal protection (the law only criminalised homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual), and would not have overturned Bowers as the Court did.

[True Federalist]

By the way, I thought O'Conner joined the majority in that Texas sodomy case.

She did, but it was a concurrence in the judgement. She would have overturned the Texas statute on grounds of equal protection (the law only criminalised homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual), and would not have overturned Bowers as the Court did.

That suggests more that she favors using the minimal argument needed to decide the case before the court and avoid bringing out the heavy artillery unless needed.  Using only what is necessary is a sign of desirable judicial restraint instead of the judicial activism favored by too many partisans of both the left and the right.

[Vasall des Midas]

Ernest's right.

[Peter]

That suggests more that she favors using the minimal argument needed to decide the case before the court and avoid bringing out the heavy artillery unless needed.  Using only what is necessary is a sign of desirable judicial restraint instead of the judicial activism favored by too many partisans of both the left and the right.

It suggests that she has a prediliction for upholding precedent, often no matter how much of a "bad law" it is. The Court had been asked to overturn Bowers, and cases like this one actually making their way up to the Supreme Court are hard to come by. Bowers was demonstably bad law - not only was it based on some shaky foundations as regards homosexualities place in Western civilizations, it also seemed to contradict previous precedent such as Griswold and Eisenstadt. The Court should not, and did not, leave these types of contradictions in its precedents.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also this Monday is whether the SCOTUS will try to save the asses of the Valerie Plame outers.