Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jul 1, 2005.
Here we go.
Yup. Let Bush's legacy begin. While not completely suprising, it wasn't really expected was it? I was expecing Rehnquist's before anyone else's.
There were rumors. Bill Kristol wrote about the possibility last week in Weekly Standard, if memory serves.
She's probably scared a developer is going to condemn her house and she needs to stay home to guard it.
This "IS" the battle royal both sides have been bracing for. Bush will look to replace O'Conner (Liberal Leaning) with a conservative. This is a balance tipper for sure as opposed to a Rehnquist retirement.
I'm really intrested to see if the "nuclear option deal" holds up. What if Bush nominates Janice Brown. How could the Democrats classify her nomination as "extraordinary circumstances" when she has already been confirmed. It should be fun.
You MUST be kidding.
I would call her a progressive, rather than a liberal. Appointed by Reagan.
To me, progressive or moderate is more of a middle ground. Conservative on some issues, liberal on others.
O'Connor has generally been refered to as one of the "swing votes" on the court. She sides with the "liberals" on some issues" and the "conservatives" on others. But around here I guess that anyone short of Clarence thomas gets calssified as "liberal"
The Bush nomination will be more than likely based on one item, the overturn of Roe vs Wade. The heck with appointing someone with a good solid record of level headed interpretation of the law, we're going to get a conservative zealot who wants to push their own "morals" on us.
She was good advocate for capitalism and business interests. You should actually read some of her decisions before classifying her.
Sandra Day O'Connor has been a moderate, the swing vote on many issues, voting with both the conservative and liberal members of the court, depending on the case. This makes her "liberal" in the eyes of hard right conservatives. For myself, I would love to see her replacement be another person who made decisions according to the law and constitution, and not according to and agenda or political ideology. As happened to Reagan in the case of O'Connor, when a new supreme is confirmed, and they no longer have to "campaign" for the job, they sometimes find themselves making decisions based on the constitution and what is just, and not party agenda.
This could be a very easy nomination for Bush, if he would nominate a moderate. But he won't, and it won't be easy.
How does the saying go?... "garbage in, garbage out"...
There is a refreshing bit of ideology. Too bad it doesn't exist more in modern politics. Now you are either for the party's beliefs or a terrorist.
I've not been a regular visitor to potpourri, but this thread caught my eye. Being a self-defined "middle-class moderate", I disagree strongly with Eagles' interpretation of the term, That being said, take a look at this article from MSNBC, which seems to me to present a balanced appraisal of Justice O'Connor's career in a few paragraphs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/
Thanks, Bogy, for your insightful comments on the issue. I would hate to see a hard liner from either side be appointed. I also agree that the most likely candidate will be a hard line conservative. That would be a bad thing, for it would be a slap in the face of the constitution.
We don't need any activist judges. A moderate judge would be welcomed by most Americans.