Posted on 07/02/2005 4:06:54 PM PDT by CHARLITE
My reaction to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement was almost as positive as my reaction in 1981 was negative when the Reagan administration announced that they were going to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.
It wouldn't matter if all nine Justices of the Supreme Court were women, if these were the nine best people available. But to decide in advance that you were going to appoint a woman and then look only among women for a nominee was a dangerous gamble with a court that has become dangerous enough otherwise.
The recent outrageous Supreme Court decision making anyone's home prey to any politician who wants to confiscate it, using the magic words "public purpose," shows a court full of itself and blind to the havoc it is leaving in its wake.
Although Justice O'Connor was one of the four who opposed this latest outrage, over the years she contributed more than her share to the uncertainties and confusions in the law resulting from such nebulous notions as "undue burden" and other "nuanced" policy-making that splits the baby instead of drawing a line.
The political temptation may be great to appoint a Hispanic Justice or another woman or some other nominee selected on the basis of group identity rather than individual qualifications. At this crucial juncture in the history of the Supreme Court, that would be needlessly repeating the mistake that brought Sandra Day O'Connor to the High Court in the first place.
The political path of least resistance would be to nominate someone who can get confirmed by the Senate without a long political battle that would polarize the country. Another little-known "stealth" nominee like David Souter might fill the bill but the track record of Justice Souter's disgraceful disregard of the Constitution should be enough to warn against going down that road again.
Then there are the judicial candidates with a "conservative" label but who lack the toughness and integrity to stand up to all the pressures and temptations to go along with ideas that will win praise in the media and among the law school elites who favor liberal judicial activism.
Among the "conservatives" who succumbed and "grew" over time to the left is Justice Anthony Kennedy, once touted by some conservatives as "Bork without a beard" but who turned out to have neither the intellect nor the strength of Judge Robert Bork. One of his former colleagues on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals warned my wife and me, early on, that Kennedy was not strong.
The first time I saw Justice Kennedy on television addressing the American Bar Association, and obviously trying to suck up to them, I was reminded of what his fellow judge had said of him.
Another Anthony Kennedy might fool enough conservatives and appease enough liberals to get confirmed without a big political fight but our children and our children's children would end up paying the price in decisions as weak, vacillating -- and dangerous -- as those which Justice Kennedy has rendered.
President Bush has taken the long view on many issues that he could easily have avoided and saved himself political trouble, including Social Security and drilling for oil in Alaska. So there is hope that he will be prepared to spend some political capital in a tough Senate confirmation fight by nominating someone with both dedication to the Constitution and the strength of character to ignore the pressures and temptations to go along with fashionable "mainstream" judicial activism.
Whether Senate Republicans will have the fortitude and unity to make their majority mean something is another question. The McCain mutiny and sellout against the Republican attempt to stop Senate filibusters by Democrats is a sign that this may be the weak link in any attempt to restore the rule of law in our courts.
Another weak link are those people who think that the Senate should not "waste" so much time over judicial nominees but instead devote its efforts to other things that are considered to be the "real" issues of the day.
Recent Supreme Court decisions, of which the one destroying homeowners' property rights was only the most outrageous, should be enough to make clear that the real issue is preserving the Constitution.
Was there really no conservative female judge that Reagan could have appointed?
Like JUDGE ROY MOORE!!!
What's maddening is that we should already own the court. O'conner, Kennedy, and Souter are all Republican appointees and have been dissapointing at best, and a disgrace at worst.
There was one: Byron White.
Yes, but of course he recently marked his 75th birthday. Little-known fact: Sowell wanted the job when O'Connor got it. Proof? A letter-to-the-editor of the Wall Street journal saying that Reagan should name an econmist to be on the Supreme Court. It was so persuasive I thought: wow! great idea! And the perfect one would be Thomas Sowell! Then I looked at the byline - Thomas Sowell!We'd all pay to see the fireworks if Sowell were nominated and thought his health would stand up to the job at his age. But the truth is that O'Connell will remain on the bench until her successor is confirmed - so there will be no recess appointment. And therefore, unless the McVainiacs come to their senses and vote Republican, the Democrats will block any nominee they like less than O'Connor - and Bush and the Republican wing of the Republican Party will avoid any nominee who they like less than O'Connor. Net effect will be that O'Connor stays on the bench until she cries uncle, and flatly quits.
Look to our esteemed RINO Orrin Hatch for this one, they were his recommendation to Klinton.
Bush is the boss, he doesn't have to appoint anyone. I hold out hope that he won't wimp out, but not a lot.
OK Sowell is too old...how about Mark Steyn?
O’Sullivan’s First Law states that "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." And that goes for individual justices of SCotUS.
And although O'Sullivan himself gives some examples as a lame "proof," his law is demonstrably true. My proof follows:
- Journalism is negative (if it bleeds, it leads)
- Journalism is superficial (because of deadline pressure)
- Journalism is arrogant (in claiming the virtue of objectivity, and also in its believe that "you never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the truckload."
- Journalism is cowardly (in that each journalist fears all the others - applying you never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the truckload" to themselves as relates to journalism in general
- It follows that journalism is cynical and bullying.
- It follows that any organization which is courageous and principled will be labeled "right wing" - and all others will be pulled to the left by the flattery and derision of journalism.
Not that one. She wrote the dissent on that one. IOW, she voted against the theft by eminent domain decision of the Court. It was a very good dissent too, although not as fiery as that written by Justice Thomas, who basically ripped new anal orifices for the five who voted to gut the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Straight, accurate and to the point. Vintage Sowell. When he speaks, I listen. The same with Krauthammer. Brilliant men!
Okay .. but I'm not letting her off the hook for ABORTION.
He just celebrated his 75th birthday on June 30. I've heard him speak on Rush Limbaugh's show. He sounds like someone in his 50s.
Happy 75th Birthday today, Thomas Sowell! (vanity)
Townhall ^ | 6/30/2005 | Christian4Bush
Posted on 06/30/2005 10:08:04 AM CDT by Christian4Bush
In that case it will prove important how she cries. Will she cry "Pres. Bush please change your nominee to someone who can be confirmed by Rats and RINOs" or will she cry "Give the appointee an up or down vote, the constitution only requires a majority for this." The two cries would be reported very differently and I'm afraid her tears will fall the first way so she can enjoy reading about herself in the W. Compost.
I don't know about Sowell's health, but historically the Supremes can last a long time in the saddle. Certainly many here had hoped Stevens wouldn't still be on the court at 86. I hope Sowell stays active and influential, in whatever remains his chosen field, as long as his former professor Milton Friedman.
Appointing Sowell is probably nothing more than a dream, but what a dream! "Mr. Sowell Goes To Washington." A big shootout between the MSM types and all us little freepers, bloggers, radio hosts, etc. in the alternative media. The blacks finally realizing we're claiming the smartest man in the country (he's had my vote for a long time) is one of them and deciding they want him on the court too. The black caucus falling silent on the issue. The RINOs with their moist fingers in the wind coming around to our side. The liberals going down in flames trying to win even a single point against him.
I would seriously doubt that she would say anything at all publicly about it. i just think that the first nominee will be conservative, and that the Democrats will filibuster because McCain assured that they're not afraid of the nuclear option. And that will drag on into the next term of the court, with no vote. Bush will not pick Estrada, exactly because Estrada pulled out (understandably) once before rather than having his law practice in limbo during the filibuster.And it will just drag on and on like that. Since O'Connor will still be on the court until her successor's confirmation, it will be business as usual on the court, just a bunch of hate and discontent in the Senate. But the Senate won't have to spend all its time on the nomination, because O'Connor will still be on the bench. So it won't, and things will just drag on. Knowing this is coming, Bush will name someone who will hang tough, and he will hang tough. And so will "objective journalism" and the rest of the Democrats.
All the O'Connor "resignation" will do is cause turmoil. A fitting end to the career of a justice who got the positon Reagan should have given Thomas Sowell. If she says anything about it, Bush can just say, "I nominated a good Justice, the Senate just won't vote." This drags on well into the '06 election season, and becomes an issue in the Senate races. In South Carolina I suspect it will be the death knell of Lindsey Graham's political career; he may be replaced by a worse Democrat, but he probably will be replaced.
WOOHOO! OUTSTANDING article! Thanks for posting.
Then when Rehnquist retires shortly after he can hit them with Janice Rogers Brown. That would take the wind out of their sails and leave them grasping to defeat a nominee they have already confirmed, shes a woman and she is black. Tough to derail that one.
It also seems a guy like Kennedy will go with the flow once the majority of the court is conservative.
That was a generic compliant, not meant to you. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.