Sandra Day O'Connor retiring [Archive] - Baby Bargains & Baby 411 Community

sntm

07-01-2005, 10:34 AM

Eh, I know I'm in limited company, but I'm glad for the opportunity for Bush. I'm certainly a mixture of conservative and liberal, but I think the court will be better off.

Renquist probably won't last long on the court, if he has the kind of thyroid cancer I suspect he does.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_sapphire_24m.gif[/img][/url]
Breastfeeding 2 years & counting

jk3

07-01-2005, 10:35 AM

Terrible, terrible news. This was bound to happen during this administration. We'll just have to wait and see how it unfolds.

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

http://lilypie.com/baby2/030603/2/5/1/-5/.png

calebsmama03

07-01-2005, 10:41 AM

Well CRAP! I'd have many more things to say but I'd probably get banned from the boards.....
Lynne
Mommy to C 3/03
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_emerald_18m.gif[/img][/url]
And Miss Purple, 5/05

JulieL

07-01-2005, 10:43 AM

I agree that this could be a very good opportunity for Bush. I am not happy with the way the courts (in general- all branches included) have been acting/making certain decisions. I think it's quite unfortunate that many people feel threatened by the new seats. I for one think the US could use a little fresher views. Sidenote - I personally don't think judges should ever be given such a long career in one seat, I think it goes right against the idea of checks and balances. How can things be checked and balanced if the same people are making the end decisions? I'm not very educated about our political system but this is one thing that has really never made sence to me.

AngelaS

07-01-2005, 10:46 AM

Ah, this is a sentimental day for me. Once upon a time as a little girl, I wanted to BE Sandra Day O'Connor---a woman on the Supreme Court. But, it didn't happen and won't. (and I'm okay with that!) :D

Now that I understand politics and I'm on the other side... go Bushy GO! :D

nd93

07-01-2005, 11:12 AM

I think it will be exciting to see history happening. And Bush does not get to just handpick someone - they have to be confirmed by the Senate - so I don't think it will be anyone too extreme. And people change, there are justices who were labelled "liberal" or "conservative" at the time of their appointments that have later written rulings that would be more classified with the other side. I guess that's the nice part about the lifetime appointment - you are free to speak your mind and heart without worry of losing your job.

kath68

07-01-2005, 11:32 AM

The lifetime appointment/checks and balances idea is that there should be one arm of the goverment that doesn't have to worry about making unpopular decisions. In other words, they can't lose their jobs if they do something the majority doesn't like (but still follows the law -- there are ways judges get removed for things like criminal activity). It is a way to protect minority interests (some would argue that without judges who are not worried for their jobs certain social advancements, like civil rights, would never happen). Two out of three branches have to answer to the people directly, and those two collaborate to pick out the people who have lifetime appointments. So who gets picked for those prime jobs is supposed to
be a reflection of what the people want.

Not all judges have appointments for life, btw -- it depends on the rules of your state. But Federal judges (district court, circuit court and Supreme Court) do.

HTH.

alkagift

07-01-2005, 11:43 AM

I am so sad about this. I didn't think she would retire first. She was such an admirable voice of reason and moderation!

Allison
Mommy to Matthew, who is TWO!

kath68

07-01-2005, 11:46 AM

I try to stay away from being too political on this board, but I do think this will be a watershed event in our political history. No exaggeration.

Bush has never been one to compromise his political agenda (and it isn't just abortion at issue, it is environment, consumer rights, criminal law, privacy, energy, corporate dominance, etc.), so you can bet he will nominate someone consistent with his political ideology to replace Justice O'Connor. That is his right to do.

If he does nominate someone like the recent appellate judges, the Demos will fight like hell (as, IMO they should, because many of the Bush policies are not in step with the majority of American's beliefs, despite the spin they get), but what kind of fight will they be able to muster since they voluntarily emasculated the filibuster? That is the only tool they have.

So either a new justice will be appointed that will change how the court swings on many issues, OR there will be a hell of a fight which will have long standing affects on how we view government and how government works. How it ends, who knows?

Makes me really nervous and scared and sad.

ETA: I should also say that what makes me the most nervous is the divisiveness this event will bring -- I don't see any way around it. I know there are a lot of people who share Bush's political ideology, and I didn't mean to get into a debate here about it. It is how divided this country is that really throws me for a loop, and the Supreme Court battles coming our way looks like the epicenter for some serious shaking up of things.

ellies mom

07-01-2005, 12:31 PM

I agree with you. I was really surprised. It seemed so out of the blue. The biggest reason I'm feeling a great deal distress over the issue is that I still expect Reinquist to retire, and some are speculating that Kenneday will as well. Replacing 3 justices with the type of people Bush is likely to choose would wreak havoc for yeas to come. There is no way he'd throw a bone and choose a moderate for on of the spots.

HannaAddict

07-01-2005, 12:36 PM

So depressing.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

alkagift

07-01-2005, 12:40 PM

That's exactly right. Absolutely. There's no way Reinquist can hang on, but perhaps Kennedy might now that O'Connor resigned. It made me wonder if the court's recent decision about land acquisition by the government and her dissenting opinion made her decide to go now.

Allison
Mommy to Matthew, who is TWO!

JulieL

07-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Ok I get that but a lifetime term - especially in our society where the elderly are living longer, seems extravagent. I mean do you really think the founding fathers would have ever thought someone would sit on the bench for 40 yrs? ( just asking, don't know ) It seems to me that a two decade seat on such an important bench enough. They could make is so that person still has the same job security, but it ends in 20 not 40 years + . I just don't get it.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 01:33 PM

But I wonder what kind of circus the confirmation process will be for TWO justices -- oh my.

That said, I am proud of Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure on the bench and hope she finds much enjoyment in her retirement. She has served the public well.

My main hope is that the Supreme Court will stick to constitutional interpretation only and avoid the social mandates.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 01:35 PM

but there may be other cases that move the line more towards pro-life, or fail to extend it further towards "choice".

Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 01:38 PM

deleted on second thought, we shouldn't turn this into an abortion debate.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 01:40 PM

I dreamt of being on the Supreme Court also. Too bad you have to become a lawyer first.

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 01:45 PM

I am not a lawyer either, and of course I hope you are right, but the last case on the issue, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey was one in which Scalia hoped Roe would be reversed(SDO had indicated I think in an earlier case she might be open to the idea). And SDO basically cast the swing vote for reproductive rights to uphold Roe. They do not have to completely reverse it, and I will bet, even if they do, they will not say so--they can just uphold very restrictive state laws, prompting other like-minded states to do the same.

I am sure someone here knows a whole lot more than I do on this. I am just trying not to think about it. Denial works :)

e.

MelissaTC

07-01-2005, 01:45 PM

And I agree with you...

MelissaTC

07-01-2005, 01:46 PM

Well I guess the poop is really going to hit the fan. UGH!

mommd

07-01-2005, 01:52 PM

Trying not to get pulled into this one, but I think your comment here is out of line.

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 01:52 PM

I don't have a daughter but soon I will hopefully, so I'll answer for myself:

Do you know anyone who wants their daughters to have abortions? What kind of question is that? Yes, this is what i dream of at night, you know us liberals, with the gay sex and the marijuana and the abortions...

I do however, whant my daughter to be raised in a society that respects the fact that, should she be in that predicament and have to make a most intimate decision, it will be she and she alone that has a say over her pain, her body, her life. I also do not wish my daughter to be mutilated and possibly die in a botched procedure in someone's basement.

e.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 01:54 PM

I predict that the Dems will filibuster, breaking any prior deals, finding "extrordinary circumstances" to justify the hold-ups of any appointee.

But, wont' there be a problem for the next Supreme Court session if it has an empty seat? Don't know if this has to be filled prior to the next session, if so, they have to move more quickly. (Long time since my civics class, so I don't know this).

I agree the divisiveness is getting ugly. I think that the Dems are furious that they don't have more power, and they're really struggling with it.

Also, expect young appointee(s) -- 40's, early 50's.

deborah_r

07-01-2005, 01:57 PM

This seems really uncalled for. Does anyone really think any mother WANTS her daughter(s) to have abortions? If anything, I would think perhaps she is worried that they will not have that choice in the unfortunate event that they should need to make that choice.

ETA: I cross-posted with E. Sorry to be repetitive.

HannaAddict

07-01-2005, 01:58 PM

I agree with E.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

AngelaS

07-01-2005, 02:00 PM

I want my daughters to respect life. I am eager to see who will replace her.

KBecks

07-01-2005, 02:02 PM

After a couple minutes, I came back to delete and saw your response. Thanks.

caridura

07-01-2005, 02:06 PM

Just wanted to say ICAM.

I'm also nervous about this.

amp

07-01-2005, 02:06 PM

Limited company, perhaps, but you aren't alone in having some conservative views and aren't alone in *not* seeing this as a terrible and "frightening" thing.

DH & I have some serious issues w/ the Supreme Court and how they are ruling on things we're not entirely sure a court should be ruling on and changing law on, so I'm not gonna argue about possibly getting someone a bit more conservative in there and changing things a little.

Marisa6826

07-01-2005, 02:09 PM

Um. OK. I'm REALLY REALLY glad that I took a break from the Board to go give Sophie lunch.

Based on what the responses are, I think that I would have been VERY upset at what was written about my wishes for my children.

Please do not presume to know me or my family - especially what I want for them. You don't know anyone's situation and what that situation may require.

A little empathy goes a LONG way.

-m

HannaAddict

07-01-2005, 02:14 PM

In our neck of the woods, the Democrats were respectful of the then Republican senator, and would only suggest federal court appointees that were approved by him - the outvoted Republican - and the democratic senator from our state. It was a joint recommendation and resulted in some very fair, moderate federal court appointments that both sides could respect and live with. Once GW was in office, that changed. The Republicans did not extend the same courtesy. Very sad. I hope the Democrats protect their constituents from being railroaded and filibuster if needed to find common ground. If a Supremem Court nominee can't get 60 votes (to break a filibuster), they have no business being on the Court. In my opinion.

ETA: kbecks - thank you for deleting your earlier "daughters" post. I just saw that you deleted it.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

kath68

07-01-2005, 02:18 PM

I know what you mean. You look at the ages of the front runners for the nomination -- they are all in their 50's. Sheesh. That means they will be there for an awful long time.

IMO, you run the risk of having some pretty out of touch people on the bench. It is a pretty isolating experience being a judge, especially a S.C. judge (I have to imagine, having never done it, and I seriously doubt I will ever be on anyone's short list :) ). So 20, 30 years down the line, what will they be like compared to the rest of the country?

I guess the counter argument is that stability in the make-up of the court is good, so the longer they stay the better.

I read a biography of Earl Warren not long ago, and there was some interesting insight about how one or two of justices (now long gone) at the end of their terms were sick, couldn't work much, and in his opinion their health affected their ability to do their jobs. They just didn't want to give up the work because they loved it so much (not to mention the political aspects of retiring).

KBecks

07-01-2005, 02:30 PM

Let's just say that abortion is a very sensitive and controversial topic, and I had hoped that your generally stated concern for your family was not specifically about access to abortion.

But, whether it was or not, I let my strong views temporarily distract from the topic of the resignation and focus instead on the abortion topic.

I'd assumed you see the original post as moderator, or if it were alerted, which it very well may have been. I think the post was not an attack at all, but after 5 minutes of posting, I realized it was probably closer to baiting the abortion topic, which is evidenced by the several responses in a short time frame.

Sorry to stir the pot,

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 02:53 PM

slightly OT, but Posner just recently suggested a mental acuity test for older, tenured judges/professors...

e.

Moneypenny

07-01-2005, 02:57 PM

Warning - uninformed political musings ahead...
I could be really wrong, but I have it in my head that many, many polls for many, many years have shown that most Americans are pretty middle-of-the-road on most issues. We self-identify to the left or right, but when asked about specific issues, most people end up smack dab in the center.

How did we end up being so divided - we all have this us vs. them mentality, yet if we really talked to "them", I think we'd find we all have quite a bit in common. Just see the above discussion about abortion - whether you label yourself pro-choice or pro-life, I think the vast majority agree that, ideally, no woman would ever find herself in a position to have to make that choice.

I'd like to see the court made up of mostly moderates, with a couple liberals and conservatives thrown in for good measure and a good representation of opinions. I'm not optimistic that it will happen, but that's my hope.

Susan
mama to my cutie pie, Avery
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_amber_9m.gif[/img][/url]

kath68

07-01-2005, 03:20 PM

Just for the older ones? There's some younger ones out there that could use it too. :)

Imagine -- across the board judicial IQ tests!

ellies mom

07-01-2005, 03:21 PM

I agree. I was thinking the same thing while getting ready this morning. Like you said, here's to hoping.

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 03:23 PM

LOL, yes for the old ones :)

There is a prof at my school that I think has taught since long before I was born. I am told he is as sharp as ever (and a legend in this area of expertise)

Can always count on Posner to come up with innovative ideas :)

starrynight

07-01-2005, 03:43 PM

Well there goes the environment and prochoice rights (insert explicative here) we are screwed.

I'm hoping against all odds that I am being super negative and something really good comes out of this. I doubt it though but considering Bush's favor is slipping we can only hope that he will actually pick someone somewhat moderate to try and save himself a little.

jk3

07-01-2005, 03:46 PM

It seems to me if someone wants to live a conservative life, that's their choice and I respect it. In this free nation, having a more liberal court is neccessary so everyone can live life as he/she sees fit.

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

http://lilypie.com/baby2/030603/2/5/1/-5/.png

Marisa6826

07-01-2005, 03:55 PM

Is there something you want to tell us?? ;)

-m

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 04:03 PM

God forbid. Can barely pay the mortgage now, girl!!

We plan to start international adoption proceedings in exactly 3 yrs, for siblings hopefully..

Too long to wait, but I dream...

e.

Marisa6826

07-01-2005, 04:11 PM

Well if you ever want to borrow a 2-1/2yo for a weekend to practice, LMK :P

-m

egfmba

07-01-2005, 04:17 PM

Wow. I thought I was one of the few who would care (this has yet to hit some of the other boards I frequent - and I'm a law student!).

As a (oh no!) female lawyer, I have to say that when SDO came to speak at my law school recently, I was extremely impressed. She's been a strong, conscious, thoughtful justice. I don't think Bush even knows anyone like that, and with his expressed views on women's abilities, I don't think he's going to appoint another woman, no matter how many justices retire.

I think that if you don't know much about the system, you shouldn't criticize. There's a reason these 9 have lifetime appointments. And they're not making the laws. They're interpreting the laws your friendly neighborhood congressmen and women make. So before you get all 'anti-activist judges' on me, remember that these 9 take pains to review legislative histories, briefs, general history, and the procedural history of each case they hear before deciding the case.

I think SDO's absence will leave a huge void. She was a swing vote, and, in case the conservatives forgot, appointed by Reagan. In fact, only two of the current justices (the last two) were appointed by a democrat (Clinton). So any conservative unhappy with the court's actions, remember: your compatriots gave you most of the justices you dislike.

I don't relate to either liberals or conservatives (I loath extremists). I hope with all my heart that Bush appoints someone who has a solid background, is at least less extreme than he is, and has some respect for individuals, states, and the Constitution.

The system may not be perfect, but neither are we. And we're the ones running it!

e

starrynight

07-01-2005, 04:23 PM

>It seems to me if someone wants to live a conservative life,
>that's there choice and I respect it. In this free nation,
>having a more liberal court is neccessary so everyone can live
>life as he/she sees fit.
>

Well said Jenn, thank you for pointing that out. I respect conservative views but I don't want them to be the ones running this country or impressed upon my family.

sntm

07-01-2005, 04:31 PM

I wouldn't rule out him appointing a woman (though I confess my ignorance as to who is even in the running.) He's appointed more women to high level positions in his administration than Clinton did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_sapphire_24m.gif[/img][/url]
Breastfeeding 2 years & counting

sntm

07-01-2005, 04:56 PM

I understand that view, but I think it is also slightly oversimplifying things. Every law we have limits freedom to a degree. And the laws are only there because otherwise someone would be doing that behavior that is illegal (well, they do that anyway!) So, if the logic that laws should represent the more liberal perspective were followed to their natural conclusion, then drug users could argue that there should be no laws regarding drugs, thieves could argue no laws regarding stealing, etc, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_sapphire_24m.gif[/img][/url]
Breastfeeding 2 years & counting

caridura

07-01-2005, 04:59 PM

Excellent point Jenn.

Joshuasmommy

07-01-2005, 05:04 PM

>>It seems to me if someone wants to live a conservative
>life,
>>that's there choice and I respect it. In this free nation,
>>having a more liberal court is neccessary so everyone can
>live
>>life as he/she sees fit.
>>
>
>Well said Jenn, thank you for pointing that out. I respect
>conservative views but I don't want them to be the ones
>running this country or impressed upon my family.

And I respect more liberal views but I don't want them to be the ones running this country or impressed upon my family.

egfmba

07-01-2005, 05:45 PM

That's what DH sez...I'm just not that confident. I wish I could be more confident in Bush's willingness to play to the constituency with the high court...I just don't think he's going to.

OTOH, maybe Condi will get a new spot...we'll see.

As to who's in the running, all I've seen are guys, but that doesn't mean that's all that's up, you know?

kath68

07-01-2005, 05:48 PM

Sorry this is long -- I got tooooo into it:

This debate (whether a liberal court is necessary for a free and tolerant society) is an interesting one.

It sometimes is framed as a big goverment/little government debate -- i.e. too much regulation is bad. I think it is more a question of *where* you want your government regulation, than whether regulation is proper. My humble observation: Conservatives and liberals both want government intervention on their core values, and get furious when the other side tries to legislate where they think the government shouldn't get involved.

Here is my admittedly over-simplified set of examples:
Liberals tend want to regulate industries (think environment) but want governmental hands off privacy issues (think gay rights, abortion, church and state). Conservatives want to regulate certain moral issues (think Terry Schaivo and abortion) and want hands off economic issues (free trade, taxation).

Point is, both sides love big government intervening when they want it to protect their core values, and hate intervention when they don't. So, when a liberal sees a conservative court -- they are worried about "activist" judges overstepping the boundaries protecting their core values. And vice versa. There are judges out there on both sides who are "activists" (including Scalia, supposedly the poster boy for strict construction) when it comes to furthering their own particular core values. Judicial activism is not the purview of just one particular political party.

That said, (and I haven't done a head count, so I am going out on a limb here) the federal judiciary is populated with far more Republican appointees than Democrat -- that is a function of having only 8 years of a Democrat Presidency in the past 25 years. I *think* the current S.C. is 7-2 Republican appointees (and you have to look a looooong way back to find a Democrat-appointed Chief Justice); so the idea that it is a liberal court isn't accurate. It is a moderate court, if not outright conservative. Same goes for the Federal judiciary at large.

AngelaS

07-01-2005, 06:40 PM

Clinton was too busy doing other things with women during his presidency.

(I'm sorry, I just HAD to comment on that one....) :D

nov02mom

07-01-2005, 07:19 PM

Oh, I'm so sad....I was hoping she could hold out until the evil empire was gone. I shudder to think what the constitution will look like when Jacob gets old enough to vote.

starrynight

07-01-2005, 08:17 PM

>Clinton was too busy doing other things with women during his
>presidency.
>
>(I'm sorry, I just HAD to comment on that one....) :D

I knew somehow once clinton's name had been brought up this was going to come up(again).

jasabo

07-01-2005, 08:19 PM

>
>And I respect more liberal views but I don't want them to be
>the ones running this country or impressed upon my family.

Ditto...I could go on and on, but will leave it at that :)

Lisa - mom to 2 yr old twin boys

aliceinwonderland

07-01-2005, 08:23 PM

"And I respect more liberal views but I don't want them to be the ones running this country or impressed upon my family"

Oh, that's simple. As a (very simplified) example, don't choose to have an abortion,or if you're gay do not make any sort of meaningful commitment (preferably stay in the closet so we are not reminded you exist and our kids don't catch the gay).

No liberal will pass laws to force you to do either one, I promise you that.

e.

starrynight

07-01-2005, 08:28 PM

>And I respect more liberal views but I don't want them to be
>the ones running this country or impressed upon my family.

There is supposed to be a separation of church and state (and in theory government)so really laws should be based on more democratic/liberal viewpoints. I am saying this because most conservative issues are coming from a moral/religious point of view (gay rights, abortion rights, marriage and civil unions) since not everyone in this country is 1 religion and some aren't even religious at all the rights and thoughts of the country as a whole should be considered not just one section of the population. Bush is very open about his religious views and his moral feelings so I'm going to assume he will elect someone that agrees with *him* not someone that agrees with and understand that they have a right to be personally conservative but really should be socially democratic or liberal when it comes to deciding on something becoming law. Meaning they don't care just about themselves, they look at the rights of everyone as a whole.

amp

07-01-2005, 08:39 PM

>It seems to me if someone wants to live a conservative life,
>that's their choice and I respect it. In this free nation,
>having a more liberal court is neccessary so everyone can live
>life as he/she sees fit.

Actually, for me, it has less to do with liberal vs. conservative than it does w/ my feeling (and DH's too, although much more vehemently) that the Supreme Court should not be changing/legislating laws, but rather protecting the rights of those who are being wronged. Instead, they've taken it upon themselves, in too many cases to change or alter what is laid out in the constitution. If a conservative judge wants to adhere to the constitution a bit more, instead of changing it, that would work very well for me. And FWIW, I didn't so much mind SDO, as she was pretty moderate, IMO, so that's why I say I'm not speaking to one side or the other on that issue.