Court sources: Rehnquist retiring

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

If by "interesting" you mean frightening and kind of crappy, I agree.

Supposedly, "May you live in interesting times" is an old Chinese curse.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Beachwood Mac

When the picture in your post appeared on the MSN home page it was cropped to only include the white bunting above the stars. I thought shrub was doing a Marilyn Monroe impersonation.

I figured we could use a little levity today. Can you believe that this is a real picture of him/not Photoshopped?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by macfanken

Your picture looks much better with a quote!

Purrrrfect!

[Hawkeye]

Im quite confused, both justices retiring are conservatives. So 2 conservatives are gonna be replaced with 2 conservatives, whats the big deal. O Connor might've occaisonally leaned left, but some of the liberals have leaned right, so the justices (to quote Mick Fleetwood) do What the hell they want. In the end I believe the balance will still be 5-4 in favor of the left.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Im quite confused, both justices retiring are conservatives. So 2 conservatives are gonna be replaced with 2 conservatives, whats the big deal. O Connor might've occaisonally leaned left, but some of the liberals have leaned right, so the justices (to quote Mick Fleetwood) do What the hell they want. In the end I believe the balance will still be 5-4 in favor of the left.

O'Conner was not a conservative as that is defined today or really as it was defined under RR. In fact, her history shows she is for less govt. intrusion in the bedroom and for most abortion rights, which makes her public enemy no. 2 to the current right wing.

[golddustwoman77]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Yup. Morgantown, WV. It really doesn't look like that. He spoke on the University's campus so it would look all rustic and old. It's very much a city. He's good at fooling the public like that.

You are not kidding! I love the fact that everytime they would talk to him at home in Texas during the election he would be in front of this old barn that looked like it was about to fall in, in his old pickup truck, or working out in the field. It just kills me that people fall for that "regular guy, working man" crap. He's George W. Bush for God's sake! Born into money and big into oil. Of course, you'll never see his house on the ranch, because it is like a frickin' mansion, and as you stated he knows how to play the game. Like his party portraying John Kerry as a rich, uncaring socialite, and I would laugh and think to myself "like George W. aka Oilboy isn't." Many people truly believe everything they see.

As far as the court situation, I'm scared to death right now. Americans can't afford for these two people to leave. I know O'Connor is gone, but Rehnquist has got to stay. Otherwise, can we say 1950s! I knew we could.....


Also, gldstwmn love the picture!!!!!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Im quite confused, both justices retiring are conservatives. So 2 conservatives are gonna be replaced with 2 conservatives, whats the big deal. O Connor might've occaisonally leaned left, but some of the liberals have leaned right, so the justices (to quote Mick Fleetwood) do What the hell they want. In the end I believe the balance will still be 5-4 in favor of the left.

O'Connor was a true swing vote.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed

O'Connor was balanced in business, worker cases

By Barbara Rose
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 7, 2005


Retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the crucial swing vote on many pressing social issues, rendered opinions affecting business in the same way she decided other matters: without an agenda, on a case-by-case basis, court watchers say.

She delighted civil rights advocates by upholding race-conscious university admissions policies, and she dismayed them by striking down a program that protected minority workers during layoffs.

She pleased women's groups by holding employers liable for sexual harassment, even when the employer was unaware of the harassment. But she disappointed disability advocates by limiting the impairments that qualify disabled workers for protection.

"She was not pro-worker, she was not pro-business," said Cass Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School. "She was very focused on the facts of individual cases."

As the battle looms over her replacement, workers' advocates fear losing a justice who didn't always vote their way but who could be counted on to keep an open mind and consider their issues.

"She was a very independent thinker, someone who really tried to balance the different interests at stake and who, as a result, was a pivotal swing vote," said Debra Ness, president of the Washington D.C.-based National Partnership for Women & Families.

"That's what makes this vacancy so significant," Ness added. "There is so much at stake."

Theodore Shaw, director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called O'Connor the "center of a conservative court" on race issues.

"It's not a matter of her being a reliable vote for civil rights--she hasn't been," said Shaw. "But she's been the key vote."

As such, her opinions shaped more than two decades of Supreme Court decisions.

Business groups viewed the 75-year-old justice as a friend. Among her pro-business rulings: limiting punitive damage awards and requiring investors to show economic losses before filing class actions.

"She wasn't always with us, but she was certainly one of the more pro-business judges on the court," said Stan Anderson, executive vice president and chief legal officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber hopes President Bush "will make a choice for somebody in the mold of Justice O'Connor," he added.

Sunstein said O'Connor's replacement is likely to be even more sensitive to business interests simply because Bush's nominee will reflect the president's pro-business leanings.

"In the area of discrimination in particular, we probably should anticipate that her replacement will be better for business than she was," he said.

That worries civil rights and women's advocates.

"It could undo decades of progress," Ness said. "We strongly believe we should only be confirming a nominee who has demonstrated a commitment to equal justice and has a sense of the protections that are important to ordinary Americans."

Still, federal civil rights lawyers do not expect bedrock workplace protections for minorities and women to be rolled back.

"I think there's a national consensus that everybody [deserves an equal chance], at least when it comes to getting a job and earning a buck to support your family," said John Hendrickson, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regional attorney in Chicago.

"There may be arguments about how you apply that principle, but the principle is not in serious dispute."

- - -

O'Connor on civil rights, harassment

1986: Joined 5-4 majority ruling striking down layoffs of senior white teachers to preserve jobs of minority teachers. Her opinion: Race-based layoffs might have been justified if school had proved they were necessary to remedy past discrimination. (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education)

1989: Joined 6-3 majority ruling striking down Richmond, Va., minority set-aside program. Her opinion: Race-conscious remedies are allowed but not a "rigid racial quota." (City of Richmond v. Croson)

1998: Joined 7-2 majority in two sexual harassment cases finding workers may hold employers responsible for a supervisor's harassment even if the employer didn't know about harassment. (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton; Burlington Industries v. Ellerth)

2003: Wrote 5-4 majority opinion upholding "flexible" consideration of race as one factor among many for university admissions, a landmark decision with implications for workplace affirmative action. (Grutter v. Bollinger)

2005: Wrote 5-4 majority opinion that coach who claimed sex discrimination against girls' basketball team was protected from firing. (Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education)

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Im quite confused, both justices retiring are conservatives.

Rehnquist is the right wing conservative. He was appointed by President Nixon. Him leaving is kind of a break even thing.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

In the end I believe the balance will still be 5-4 in favor of the left.

If we had a 5-4 majority on the left, Gore would be president right now.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by golddustwoman77

Also, gldstwmn love the picture!!!!!!!!!

Thanks.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

If we had a 5-4 majority on the left, Gore would be president right now.

so true, and how sad.......

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

If we had a 5-4 majority on the left, Gore would be president right now.

well, perhaps not now - but certainly from 2000-04

couldn't resist

[eclipse]

Funny as I was typing the word Justices for a title I realized the irony of the Title/Position/Honor/Responsibilities associated with being a "Justice", on the Supreme Court no less....

Frightning indeed- My theory is he will go for Rodriquez first (to replace O'Connor, he's less conservative than W would like, I think but it will make the hispanics happy and satisfy some of us that aren't predisposed to W's religious rantings, and be the least controversial of all the choices he has)

What scares me is who does he have in mind for Rheinquist? His list of cronies is endless and the power that comes with this position is INCREDIBLE.

After spending hours thinking about London- I'm unable to think about the consequences of this too...my head hurts
~~eclipse~~

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by eclipse

What scares me is who does he have in mind for Rheinquist? His list of cronies is endless and the power that comes with this position is INCREDIBLE.

My guess would be Scalia.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

My guess would be Scalia.

There is no question in my and many other minds that Scalia is going to be the new Chief Justice, which while not good, it is not that huge of a deal as Saclia will probably do not too differently than Renquist, if he indeed retires. W could make Thomas the CJ, but that would be a slap in Scalia's face.