O'Connor? Please, not O'Connor!

[shanbaum]

Just pulled my head out of the oven long enough to say goodbye to everyone.

To add insult to injury, I have an electric oven. This may take a while.

[coda]

I'm saddened as well. I consider O'Connor to be one of the more moderate and moderating voices on the bench. It's interesting, before Renquist became ill the major focus of retirement rumors centered around O'Connor, I guess they were right.

I doubt that the Whitehouse has been putting as much thought into an associate justice vacancy, I wonder if they even have a current short list. In any event they'll have a tough act to follow with this one.

Presuming we end up with a justice in the Scalia mold what short term changes can we expect to see? I believe Roe still will have 5 fairly solid supporters but I think some other social issues will flop the other way, gay rights in particular. What else will change?

[rbaker]

shanbaum

Electric oven - 220 volts - 150 amps. Some wire, a collandar, water soaked sponges, your favorite chair. With a little ingenuity there is really no need to linger.

Did you ever wonder why it's an electric chair? Why not a chaise lounge or a bed?

[chip anderson]

Too bad she couldn't have done it last year before she started citing European Law as precedent for U.S. law. When she considered the U.S. Constitution the only thing she was qualified to rule on she was a good justice.

[shanbaum]

Too bad she couldn't have done it last year before she started citing European Law as precedent for U.S. law. When she considered the U.S. Constitution the only thing she was qualified to rule on she was a good justice.

Once again, Chip, you get the Chambless Trophy for having no idea what you're writing about. The decision to which you refer is Roper v. Simmons, in which the majority opinion (including the references to what the rest of the world thinks, which have been so derided by the radical right) was written by Justice Kennedy (hmm... another Reagan appointee). Here's what Justice O'Connor had to say in her dissent in that case, which found the imposition of the death penalty on children younger than 18 years of age unconstitutional:

I turn, finally, to the Court's discussion of foreign and international law. Without question, there has been a global trend in recent years towards abolishing capital punishment for under-18 offenders. Very few, if any, countries other than the United States now permit this practice in law or in fact. While acknowledging that the actions and views of other countries do not dictate the outcome of our Eighth Amendment inquiry, the Court asserts that "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty ... does provide respected and significant confirmation for [its] own conclusions." Because I do not believe that a genuine national consensus against the juvenile death penalty has yet developed, and because I do not believe the Court's moral proportionality argument justifies a categorical, age-based constitutional rule, I can assign no such confirmatory role to the international consensus described by the Court. In short, the evidence of an international consensus does not alter my determination that the Eighth Amendment does not, at this time, forbid capital punishment of 17-year-old murderers in all cases.

Nevertheless, I disagree with Justice SCALIA's contention that foreign and international law have no place in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Over the course of nearly half a century, the Court has consistently referred to foreign and international law as relevant to its assessment of evolving standards of decency. This inquiry reflects the special character of the Eighth Amendment, which, as the Court has long held, draws its meaning directly from the maturing values of civilized society. Obviously, American law is distinctive in many respects, not least where the specific provisions of our Constitution and the history of its exposition so dictate. But this Nation's evolving understanding of human dignity certainly is neither wholly isolated from, nor inherently at odds with, the values prevailing in other countries. On the contrary, we should not be surprised to find congruence between domestic and international values, especially where the international community has reached clear agreement--expressed in international law or in the domestic laws of individual countries--that a particular form of punishment is inconsistent with fundamental human rights. At least, the existence of an international consensus of this nature can serve to confirm the reasonableness of a consonant and genuine American consensus. The instant case presents no such domestic consensus, however, and the recent emergence of an otherwise global consensus does not alter that basic fact.

Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1215 -16 (2005) (citations omitted).


I guess anyone who can b****-slap Scalia is OK by me.

It will probably not interest you to know, as recognized in the majority opinion in that case, that "only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice." Id. at 1199.

Does it help to know that that's what they were talking about? Are you comfortable being the last to come off that list?

[Pete Hanlin]

I will admit up front that I am not sure, but wasn't Justice O'Connor nominated by President Ronald Reagan?

With Chief Justice Rehnquist also set to retire, the make-up of the Supreme Court could change dramatically. By way of calming things down a bit, I would note that nominating a justice has always proved a bit tricky for executive branch ideologues. Supposedly "conservative" justices have turned out to be quite liberal, and vice versa.

Regardless, I don't foresee Roe v. Wade (that most cherished of decisions for many Americans) ever being overturned. Even if the right to terminate the life of an unborn was basically "invented," it has now become ingrained in our society.

Anyway, I look for the Democrats to pull another pout "we'll have ourselves a fillibuster" fest (which will be given plenty of airtime), and I would hope the President would just nominate someone neither side can complain about too much (if such a person exists). Yes, I for one am ready to give in to the steady, annoying, counter-productive moaning and groaning from the Congressional minority (which means they are doing their ordained task as a minority- so kudos to them). Besides, the lunacy fringe of the GOP's left (aka, McCain) will doubtless just grab any opportunity to set himself up as a dealmaker (in a barely hidden warmup for a presidential run in '08).

Let's just focus back on fixing the most ill-conceived fiscal program in the history of our country (aka Social Security, for those of you still in denial).

[shanbaum]

Anyway, I look for the Democrats to pull another pout "we'll have ourselves a fillibuster" fest (which will be given plenty of airtime), and I would hope the President would just nominate someone neither side can complain about too much (if such a person exists). Yes, I for one am ready to give in to the steady, annoying, counter-productive moaning and groaning from the Congressional minority (which means they are doing their ordained task as a minority- so kudos to them).

Please, Pete, write your Senators.

[Spexvet]

Let's just focus back on fixing the most ill-conceived fiscal program in the history of our country (aka Social Security, for those of you still in denial).

I thought you were referring to tax cuts for the rich!:hammer:

[Spexvet]

I thought you were referring to tax cuts for the rich!:hammer:

And running up the deficit!:finger: :angry:

[chip anderson]

Yes, O'Connor was appointed by Reagan as a strict conservative. But she turned out to have very liberal or "moderate" leanings. Ronnie would have been very disappointed in her.

[Cindy Hamlin]

The did a segment on the nightly news and she is retiring to take care of her husband. Evidently he is sick, but I missed what from?

O'Connor said she will retire when her successor is confirmed. The justice said she ``needs to spend more time with her husband,'' Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. O'Connor's husband, John, is ill.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

Talk about love! She is truly a great lady!

[Pete Hanlin]

I listened to some soundbites on NPR. She mentioned growing up wanting to work a ranch. It would seem Justice O'Connor hails from Texas.

I'm sure the nomination process will provide hours of entertainment for political junkies such as myself...

[shanbaum]

I listened to some soundbites on NPR. She mentioned growing up wanting to work a ranch. It would seem Justice O'Connor hails from Texas.

I'm sure the nomination process will provide hours of entertainment for political junkies such as myself...

Arizona.

[Pete Hanlin]

Not that it matters, but Justice O'Connor was born 26 March 1930 in El Paso, Texas- according to http://www.who2.com/sandradayoconnor.html

[rep]

Once again, Chip, you get the Chambless Trophy for having no idea what you're writing about.

Who dosen't know what they are talking about?

Give yourself an award too.

Rep

[shanbaum]

Who dosen't know what they are talking about?

Give yourself an award too.

Rep

You might be able to deduce from the structure of my sentence that I was writing of Chip (who, despite the incorrect inference one might draw from the structure of your question, remains a single individual).

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion. I suppose I could give myself an award; it's been a pretty good year.

[shanbaum]

Not that it matters, but Justice O'Connor was born 26 March 1930 in El Paso, Texas- according to http://www.who2.com/sandradayoconnor.html

But she grew up on a ranch in Arizona.

[rep]

But she grew up on a ranch in Arizona.

"O'Connor earned undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University and eventually settled in Arizona"

That's two incorrect statements. Are you sure you don't deserve an award for not knowing what you are talking about?

Rep

[1968]

"O'Connor earned undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University and eventually settled in Arizona"

That's two incorrect statements. Are you sure you don't deserve an award for not knowing what you are talking about?

Rep

"Sandra Day O'Connor was born March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas. Her parents, Harry and Ada Mae, owned the Lazy-B-Cattle Ranch in southeastern Arizona, where O'Connor grew up."

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/le.../102/biography

[shanbaum]

"O'Connor earned undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University and eventually settled in Arizona"

That's two incorrect statements. Are you sure you don't deserve an award for not knowing what you are talking about?

Rep

Rep, if you were slightly more capable of reading and comprehending, you would realize two things:

1. I never wrote anything about where she was born (which is, you may not understand, different from where she grew up);

2. The quote that you provided does not conflict with the statement that "she grew up on a ranch in Arizona". It says nothing about where she grew up (nor anything about where she was born).

I gleaned that bit of information about where she grew up from one or more articles I read about her. It remains my understanding that she thinks she "grew up on a ranch in Arizona", and I would be surprised were I to hear that she thinks of herself as "hailing from Texas". I suppose I could read her autobiography and possibly know for sure about that, but I think I shall not, at least for the time being.

[Pete Hanlin]

The NPR snippet said she was "from Texas," and then ran a soundbite of her which included her saying "...growing up on a ranch..." This is obviously a case of bad inductive reasoning. I knew that a.) she was born in Texas, b.) she grew up on a ranch, c.) there are a lot of ranches in Texas- therefore, she grew up on a Texas ranch.

Good example of how a set of facts can be misinterpreted, even when applying "logical" reasoning- now I know how it must feel to be a liberal! (Sorry, just had to throw in a jibe to cover my retreat... ;^)
:)

PS- I would second that Chip is very Darrisesque at times- however, I would hasten to add that I miss Darris' unique viewpoints (and the consternation he used to cause Shanbaum, my friend on the left).
;)

[hcjilson]

Pete's listening to NPR!!! He may be coming around after all! ;)

[Spexvet]

Pete's listening to NPR!!! He may be coming around after all! ;)

I thought we already established that Pete's a closet Liberal.

[shanbaum]

PS- I would second that Chip is very Darrisesque at times- however, I would hasten to add that I miss Darris' unique viewpoints (and the consternation he used to cause Shanbaum, my friend on the left).

Chip just tends to be astonishingly misinformed. He does not, however, appear to be immune to logic (nor to facts, once he is made aware of them).

So, he is both like Darris, and unlike him.

"Consternation"? I guess I can't argue with that.

[hcjilson]

and I am proud to call him a friend, probably because we have a lot in common. I tend to shoot first too! :bbg: You never have to wonder on which side of the fence he sits....he lets it all hang out and calls them the way he see's them, and once he's made up his mind....thats about it.I would rather try to move Mount Everest 3 feet than to try to change his mind.( Although I've tried to change it more than once.) I think he brought a lot of spark to the board, and I for one wish he would start posting again.......if for nothing other than to watch the sparks fly.