Posted on 07/01/2005 8:17:53 AM PDT by Sun
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor July 01, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation on Friday. She said she will stay on until a successor is named.
The White House said President Bush would make a statement in the White House Rose Garden sometime after 11 a.m., but press reports said he was not expected to nominate O'Connor's successor at that time.
The timing of O'Connor's announcement, coming on a slow news day before the long holiday weekend, caught much of Washington by surprise; but for weeks, press reports have speculated that either O'Connor or Chief Justice William Rehnquist or both - probably would step down.
I understand. I agree.
But I'm talking about how best to accomplish the goal.
Making it an abortion battle is not going to work.
It needs to be about the Constitution.
Bump!
That is true. But this is not the time. Constructionism is the issue. Abortion is a fight for another day. The abortion issue must kept off the table for now. Even if Roe v. Wade is reversed, it will not change anything. California will still permit it. We must wait.
The left is already on the warpath, demanding, among other things, that Bush rely on Harry Reid's "centrist" list. Check out the comments at the daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/1/111447/3656)
You are exactly right. In fact you don't have to be Pro-Life to understand that Row was a flawed decision, for many reasons.
Get to the back of the bus, you stupid pro-lifers! It wasn't the time to bring up this issue when Clinton appointed his pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices, it hasn't been the time since then, nor is it the time now. When will it ever be the time? We'll let you know. So, sit down and shut up.
Make me :-)
I understand your frustration.
But you need to calm down and look for the best way to accomplish your goals.
Inflaming either side is not the way.
Getting people on the SC that will be strict constructionists is the way.
The abortion issue will take care of itself once that is accomplished.
You ever see the movie "Colors"? Remember that story Duvall told about the bull and his son? The two bulls were sitting on top of a hill looking down at the herd and the young bull said, "Hey Dad. Let's run down there and screw one of those cows!". The older bull said, "No, son. Let's WALK down and screw them all."
It's a great lesson.
I'll tell you what. If you insist on President Bush putting forward only prolife canidates, then you will see a vicious attack on each one of them and real good judges will not get confirmed to the bench. If you make abortion a central issue in the process, none of these judges will get confirmed. The constitution should be the central issue, then we can start working on reversing Roe v wade, but we must get a constructionist on the bench first. Dont you see that?
"The nominee doesn't have to be "pro-life".
He or she just needs to be able to follow the Constitution and the rest will take care of itself."
A pro-life judge is a judge with integrity, and will interpret the Constitution, as well.
Case in point: Scalia and Thomas
President Bush promised us that he would select nominees, such as Scalia and Thomas when he first ran for president, and I hope he keeps his word and does not pick someone like Gonzales who is pro-"choice" AND wants gun control.
We need to tell Bush what kind of judges we want.
BTW, Gonzales is a very good friend of President Bush, and the president may want to give his good friend a job for life.
Everybody: Check out Post #15.
It might be good to suggest Janice Rogers Brown to the president.
So, you're saying that a candidate who is not pro-life is acceptable? That we're wrong to insist upon someone who wishes to protect life and who does not see the Constitution somehow protecting the right of women to have their babies dismembered?
But, O'Connor was on the correct side of the Kelo case.
I'd rather pick someone who will decide each court case based on the Constitution, and not someone who will go in with an agenda, liberal or conservative.
"Also contact your senators, this is what I sent Lindsey Graham, my infamous senator,:
Sandra Day O'Connor retiring!"
What are you going to do when the Dems filibuster this appointment? Are you going to tuck your tail and run? Are you going to be the ole cowboy sidekick to the idiot, John Mclain, when he takes the demorats side? Are you going to try to broker another inside deal with the other party so you will again be in the limelight of the liberal news media?
Tell me Senator, (a person that has given you at least 10 votes on two occasions), which way are you going this time???????"
We are on the same page. Please check out my tagline.
That is true, and I must admit that I am a little saddened by her retirement, and I can only hope Bush will appoint someone who shares O'Connor's views on property rights.
Ditto.
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.