Breaking News -- SCOTUS Justice O'Conner steps down

[GalvestonDuck]

Just hearing on ABC Good Morning America.

[Brent]

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

WASHINGTON - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.

[Dee Bee]

Well -- not the justice expected to retire right now! Although since her husband has been ill, apparently this announcement was not entirely unexpected.

The first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor has been a pivotal "swing vote" on many cases.

Her replacement confirmation will most likely be long and controversial.

[mf_dolphin]

It looks like there will now be 2 new justice's appointed by President Bush. Look for the court to swing decidedly conservative in the future.

[Brent]

Well -- not the justice expected to retire right now! Although since her husband has been ill, apparently this announcement was not entirely unexpected.

I'm slightly surprised, but her name was being floated as the other one besides Rehnquist to resign, so I'm not shocked. She's been on the court since 1981... WOW

[JTD]

This is a catastrophe. If the democrats want to retain their base at all, they must filibuster any of Bush's nominees.

That said, Congratulations to Ronald Reagan for appointing the 1st female and such a great justice to the supreme court. Sandra Day O'Connor's 5th and decisive vote made America a better place.

Her replacement on the other hand will be nightmarish.

Now, on a purely spectator note, get ready for a battle the likes of which Washington has not seen..........ever.

[Steve]

Losing a moderate/swing-vote type justice is a hard pill for me to swallow since there is little I desest more than the partisan climate in Washington these days. Everyone lives and feeds off of soundbytes these days like politics is a Championship Wrestling Match or NASCAR race. The 2-second attention span of most Americans plays well into the hands of extremists on both sides of the aisle. But we already have a conservative majority court. We don't need a police state here in America. I'm sure the founding fathers will be turning in their graves. I'm talking about real thinkers like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and such who took pains as the deists and enlightened individuals they were to realize that liberty was the most important aspect of our future country. Just about every president after Ford has worked tirelessly to reduce our liberties.

Oh well, who wants a thoughtful justice anyway when the real (!) battles are over stupid stuff like abortion, gay marriage, and the 10 Commandments being presented in a courtroom.

Hey, I'll take my Wal-Mart nation, McAmerica, over anything else. But we're a sad shell of what this country was supposed to be. With guys like Dean and Rove calling the shots, it's only going to get worse.

What's an independent 'posed to do?

Steve

[Stephanie]

She's a tough loss. I agree with you Steve. The last thing we need is to have one extreme or another on that court. We need someone with an open mind, that has common sense and no agenda. Moderation in my mind is best.

[rainstorm]

It looks like there will now be 2 new justice's appointed by President Bush. Look for the court to swing decidedly conservative in the future.

since you brought it up. how will it swing conservative? if bush nominates a true conserative dems will block it, and they wont budge. then we are back to needing 50 republican senators to eliminate judicial filibusters.

[stormie_skies]

I agree with you two, Stephanie and Steve. Although I haven't agreed with all of their decisions, I have had a lot of respect for the current Court ... I think most of the sitting justices are very serious thinkers....they are moderate and not particularly political, and make their decisions based on the case law in front of them, as opposed to their pre-concieved notions and personal "morality." I can say I respect their decisions even though most of them were appointed by Republicans, and I consider myself a Democrat. I can say I respect their decisions even though they lean strongly conservative (and they do, Marshall ...its just that the meaning of "conservative" has changed so much) and I lean liberal in many respects. And honestly, I think that's how it should be - the Court should be made up of people we can all respect....people who we as a nation, Democrat and Republican, religious and non-religious, can say with confidence that we can believe in to think things through and base their decisions on the law provided, regardless of their personal beliefs (or ours).

I am gonna miss this court - and Justice O'Connor in particular. I cannot imagine a justice trying harder to be fair and legally right than she has - even in the face of extreme political pressure and knowing she would so often be the deciding vote on divisive issues. Little girls everywhere should aspire to be like her.

It seems next to impossible that, in the radical political climate we have fostered, someone as moderate, intelligent and pragmatic as Justice O'Connor could be nominated and confirmed. But we live in America, where there is always supposed to be hope... and I love my country, so hope is what I will do. That, and sign a lot of petitions and make a lot of phone calls.

I hope that the President remembers that he is beholden to all of us... that this may be his biggest contribution to the future of this nation ..... that he once promised to be a uniter, and this could be his chance to actually fulfill that promise.....that we are already at war outside our borders, and we don't need to also fight a war within them. I hope he remembers all that, and chooses to nominate a judge who represents the moderate core of the American spirit.

But what I hope and what I expect are two different things altogether...

[rainstorm]

She's a tough loss. I agree with you Steve. The last thing we need is to have one extreme or another on that court. We need someone with an open mind, that has common sense and no agenda. Moderation in my mind is best.

again, since this has been brought up, bush's voters, as mf is saying when he says the court will swing conservative, didnt vote for bush to nominate a "moderate". and i have to ask a question. if hillary were president now, would liberals want her to nominate a "moderate"? of course not. she would nominate a far left liberal like ginsburg. she would reward her voters as liberals would want. and why not? if this were the political forum i would post how extreme left ginsburg is. yet, she was voted on the court, nominated by bill clinton by a 97-0 vote. lets see if dems now will do the same if bush nominates a conservative.

[rainstorm]

I agree with you two, Stephanie and Steve. Although I haven't agreed with all of their decisions, I have had a lot of respect for the current Court ... I think most of the sitting justices are very serious thinkers....they are moderate and not particularly political, and make their decisions based on the case law in front of them, as opposed to their pre-concieved notions and personal "morality." I can say I respect their decisions even though most of them were appointed by Republicans, and I consider myself a Democrat. I can say I respect their decisions even though they lean strongly conservative (and they do, Marshall ...its just that the meaning of "conservative" has changed so much) and I lean liberal in many respects. And honestly, I think that's how it should be - the Court should be made up of people we can all respect....people who we as a nation, Democrat and Republican, religious and non-religious, can say with confidence that we can believe in to think things through and base their decisions on the law provided, regardless of their personal beliefs (or ours).

I am gonna miss this court - and Justice O'Connor in particular. I cannot imagine a justice trying harder to be fair and legally right than she has - even in the face of extreme political pressure and knowing she would so often be the deciding vote on divisive issues. Little girls everywhere should aspire to be like her.

It seems next to impossible that, in the radical political climate we have fostered, someone as moderate, intelligent and pragmatic as Justice O'Connor could be nominated and confirmed. But we live in America, where there is always supposed to be hope... and I love my country, so hope is what I will do. That, and sign a lot of petitions and make a lot of phone calls.

I hope that the President remembers that he is beholden to all of us... that this may be his biggest contribution to the future of this nation ..... that he once promised to be a uniter, and this could be his chance to actually fulfill that promise.....that we are already at war outside our borders, and we don't need to also fight a war within them. I hope he remembers all that, and chooses to nominate a judge who represents the moderate core of the American spirit.

But what I hope and what I expect are two different things altogether...

i feel differently. its incumbent upon dems to be uniters. bush has tried. and lets not forget, there has never been a more extreme leftist nominated to the court than ruth bader ginsburg, and yet, republicans gave her 100% support as she won confimration by a 97-0 vote. lets see if dems do as reps did just a few years ago. there is no reason for a war to be fought over a judicial appointment, bill or hillary would nominate a leftist, bush should nominate a conservative. unless he nominates someone grossly unqualified to be a judge, political views shouldnt even be considered. reps didnt when they voted ginsburg on the court 97-0

[Dee Bee]

She's a tough loss. I agree with you Steve. The last thing we need is to have one extreme or another on that court. We need someone with an open mind, that has common sense and no agenda. Moderation in my mind is best.

Amen!

[Derek Ortt]

steve,

those issues you mentioned are extremely important. I for one do not want the state to recognize any type of marriage (thats for the Church) or allow baby killing. For one, I'd rather these issues be resolved according to our Constitution and not to the whim of moveon.org

[mikey mike]

The other 8 traitors should be following in her foot steps!!

[Brent]

The other 8 traitors should be following in her foot steps!!

Well just the ones that voted for that stupid "businesses can take your home" thing.

[Steve]

>>those issues you mentioned are extremely important. I for one do not want the state to recognize any type of marriage (thats for the Church) or allow baby killing. For one, I'd rather these issues be resolved according to our Constitution and not to the whim of moveon.org

I don't disagree with you on state recognizing marriages. People get too caught up in the religious aspects of such. It should be unions that the state recognizes with full rights and equality for all. As for abortion, I'm a fence-sitting pro-choicer. That's a whole nother topic for another day. The only thing I'll say on it is that as a society, we should strive to reduce the numbers of abortions performed as a means of birth control. As for the 10 Commandments in the courts, Madison said it best when he stated that religion and government stay purer the more distance they have between one another. He broke some of his own tenets while President but wrote on that stuff later. He, as most of our founding fathers said, wanted liberty to be a primary factor in our future country. Everyone was free to believe as he or she so chose to. I don't mind pictures of them, but erected as monuments to show some phony uber-religious/zelous bent, then it's another thing altogether. The country was created for the people and by the people and in setting up that type of government, they didn't want religion having an undue influence nor did they want to exert that same influence over any specific religion.

Steve

[Stephanie]

I agree with you again Steve!!