ForumGarden

"Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement."

There goes the moderator, then. The most powerful woman in the US has retired.

"Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans."

Does anyone think the current administration is likely to offer up balanced nominations, or will they be two partisan offerings? Or do people think that Rehnquist will still be there through 2008?

I think Rehnquist will return for one more session. I think he is probably a fighter and sees retirement as giving up on the cancer.

I think the President will offer up a candidate that will be seen as too conservative just because he is making the appointment. This is going to be a tough battle, no matter who he chooses.

What happens? Does the nomination have to be approved by both senate and congress?

I note that, of the nine, only two were appointed by Democrat presidents. I wonder whether resignations naturally arrange themselves that way, after a while? "Oh, I can't possibly resign yet, or we'll get another lefty liberal judge like Warren"?

I think we're approaching the two-vacancy position, now.

It was the second time in less than four months that Rehnquist was taken to the hospital by ambulance. In March, he was taken with breathing problems.

There has been much speculation that Rehnquist might retire soon and create a second vacancy on the bench.

spot wrote: I note that, of the nine, only two were appointed by Democrat presidents. I wonder whether resignations naturally arrange themselves that way, after a while? "Oh, I can't possibly resign yet, or we'll get another lefty liberal judge like Warren"?
Weird that not all the justices Republicans have appointed are right wing fanatics? In fact I think they are all mostly pretty fair minded. If not wouldn't most the votes go 7-2? I think most judges that decide to be judges are pretty fair minded, besides we do not need politics on the bench..........PERIOD.



Unfortunately it will not go that way with anyone President Bush nominates. Politics will be the # 1 focus on whoever is nominated..........



Let the GAMES begin

jackie wrote: I do believe that the 1st step is the senate approving bush's nomination. Chances are he will not blow this chance to please the people that got him elected...the Godsquad, so I assume he will nominate someone way to consevative. We need another moderate. This country is way to diverse to just have prudes in there.

The unfortunate thing is the Republicans control the senate, so it will be a tough battle.

Jackie Wellman

www.hoppy.bravehost.com
Jackie, Don't get sucked into the politicians' short-sightedness. I want to see anyone who has made a judicial decision that went against the grain of his/her own moral/political tendencies because the constitution demanded it. the more such decisions, the higher on my list.

Accountable wrote: Jackie, Don't get sucked into the politicians' short-sightedness. I want to see anyone who has made a judicial decision that went against the grain of his/her own moral/political tendencies because the constitution demanded it. the more such decisions, the higher on my list.
Bravo. That is the real test isn’t it.

I went back to the Eisenhower administration, or what we might consider the modern era, to compare Supreme Court appointees. I thought it would be interesting to see if there is an ideological pattern to selecting justices according to political philosophy. Here's what I found, though some of it is subjective and no doubt there will be those who disagree with my conclusions. Never the less:

Eisenhower(R) appointees:

Earl Warren - became increasingly liberal during his tenure, move the court to the left. Definitely not a right-winger

John Harlan - somewhat conservative but voted with liberals on civil rights. Moderately conservative.

William Brennan - liberal

Charles Whittaker - an anomoly. Suffered nervous breakdown and retired after 5 years. Never really established any kind of judicial philosophy but tended Mid-Western conservative.

Potter Stewart - moderate

Kennedy (D) appointees:

Byron White - conservative

Arthur Goldberg - liberal



Johnson (D) appointees:

Abe Fortas - liberal. Was a democratic party advisor before landing on the Supreme Court

Thurgood Marshall - solid liberal

Nixon (R) appointees:

Warren Burger - conservative

Harry Blackmun - solid liberal

Lewis Powell - moderate

William Rhenquist - solid conservative

Ford (R) appointees:

John Paul Stevens - moderate, but usually sides with liberal justices



Reagan(R) appointees:

Sandra Day O'Connor - moderate

Antonin Scalia - solid conservative (Democrats fought hard)

Anthony Kennedy - tends liberal

Bush I(R) appointees:

David Souter - liberal

Clarence Thomas - solid conservative (Democrats fought hard)

Clinton (D) appointees:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - solid liberal, counsel for ACLU, Republicans gave easy confirmation

Stephen Breyer - solid liberal, Republicans again allowed easy confirmation



So, out of 15 Republican appointees, only 4 can be said to have been solid conservatives, while 6 turned out to be moderate, and 5 were liberal.



Of the 6 Democratic appointees, 1 was conservative, 0 moderate, and 5 liberal.

AHAH!!

Solid proof that Republican appointees are more intellectually honest than Democrat appointees.

No, wait...

AHAH!!

Solid proof that Democrat appointees are more consistent than Republican appointees, and thus more mature.

No, wait...

AHAH!!

Solid proof that Republican presidents are far more liberal with their power of appointments, making Democrats the conservative party after all.

No, wait...