Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Sandra Day O'Connor Announces her Retirement

Cherielabombe

20:26 / 01.07.05

Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. The news of this has made me very nervous and sad. Although chosen by Reagan to be a conservative, O'Connor has in fact voted rather moderately throughout her career. The thought of who Bush will choose to replace her is very, very nerve-wracking.

This thread is for thoughts and comments about O'Connors replacement and Bush appointees.

Ariadne

21:03 / 01.07.05

Interesting, I just got a frantic email from feministmajority.org looking for money to help fund a campaign about this. It sounds terrifying - from what I've seen, it wouldn't take much to get Roe v Wade overturned now. I wonder how she feels about stepping down? Though she's 75, so it's understandable.

Mr Tricks

21:28 / 01.07.05

IOFG!!! with her stepping down and good old uncle Anton's cancer potentially moving him towards an ealier retirement, how many crackpot apointees will NOT be getting filibustered over this.

Chefdaddy

07:34 / 02.07.05

Nothing good will come of this. Dubyah will use this as a litmus test for Renquist's replacement. IMO, he will probably nominate someone who is just inches away from being on the fringe so he can see how difficult/easy it will be to get another ultra-conservative in. I may be wrong, but I have a bad bad feeling about this whole situation.

Char Aina

13:05 / 06.07.05

found via the fword, originally from Ms., and cross posted from my own site:

"While many of us like to assume that our rights will always be secure, the stark reality is that many hard-won protections hang by a thread — and that thread, metaphorically, is attached to the robe of a Supreme Court justice. Here are five rights that, with an ultraconservative Supreme Court, we would stand to lose"

ibis the being

17:41 / 06.07.05

It sounds terrifying - from what I've seen, it wouldn't take much to get Roe v Wade overturned now.

It would most likely take an anti-abortionist O'Connor replacement, plus one replacing one of the more liberal justices. Renquist's replacement won't tip the scales. So, it won't happen next year, but is a possibility in the foreseeable future.

What's interesting is that currently Gonzales is the rumored favorite and the super-conservatives are absolutely frothing at the mouth over the fact that he's pro-choice. In fact right now they're making the biggest stink about replacing O'Connor, and if the Democrats were to play their cards right - which they won't, of course, HOWARD DEAN - they would just shut up and let the Republican party sink its own battleship.

grant

18:38 / 06.07.05

Taste the fear, Barbelith.

Just so you know how the other half is thinking.

jbsay

02:21 / 07.07.05

If it's gonzales, please someone suggest a backup country since mine is pretty far gone

Mr Tricks

17:02 / 08.07.05

This prettymuch says it all.

grant

17:15 / 08.07.05

According to talkingpointsmemo, there's a rumor Rehnquist's going to announce his retirement by next Monday.

This means Bush gets two for the price of one -- but this might be a good thing, since it's all at once. If Rehnquist waits another year or two (no one thinks he can hang on for all four), the fire might have cooled after the O'Connor replacement goes through.

Add Your Reply