CNN-Senate Judiciary Members Suggest Imminent SCOTUS Retirement Coming..Possibly today

The Hotline / National Journal and CNN ^ | June 26, 2003 | Ted Barrett

[ewing]

Speculation here in Washington is at a fever pitch at this point about whether there will be an announcement today.

If one believes the relationship between the Senate Majority Leader and the White House is as close as been rumoured, then the release by Sen. Frist of his guidelines for handing a SCOTUS nomination may actually signal something in the next 48 hours.

CNN's 'Morning Grind' reports that Senate Judiciary Members whispering about increased chatter suggesting an 'imminent retirement' possibly as soon as today; the reports are described as 'specific' and 'credible.'

They sound like intelligence officers debating whether the threat level should be raised to Orange.

Asked if he's heard about a retirement, Chief Justice Rehnquist said with a smile, 'No, I havent heard anyhing.'

[justshutupandtakeit]

So rather than take a chance that a conservative court could be put in place you will go with the certainty that it won't and call that principle? Any more absurd strategies for us to laugh at?

[marsh2]

Any hispanic women conservatives? More than half the population is female and SCOTUS would be left with only 1 female if O'Connor leaves. It would seem that for cultural diversity, it would round out our justice system to have an hispanic perspective on the court.

I really hope it is not Thomas, Scalia or O'Connor because of their rational view of property rights and the intrusion of overbearing environmental restrictions.

[ewing]

O' Connor seems to be taking a lot of heat the past few days, If I had to bet..I think it is her

[sinkspur]

He's pro-choice. Tell, me, since having a pro-choice voting record doesn't make someone pro-choice, what does?

He doesn't "vote." He made a judicial judgment, which all but one of the Supreme Court justices agreed with.

Seriously, how stupid are you? The man struck down a pro-life law and you still say he's pro-life.

I'm not as stupid as you, buster. You think a judge is supposed to vote on the basis of political ideology and not THE LAW!

[1stFreedom]

>>you will go with the certainty that it won't and call that principle? Any more absurd strategies for us to laugh at?

Continuing to vote for people who string you along and have no intention of actually doing what they want you to is absurd. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

Make them *EARN* your vote, not take it for granted.

>> Any more absurd strategies for us to laugh at?

Yea, continue on the course of being strung along. Absolutely absurd.

[proud American in Canada]

", I'd prefer the nuclear option and ramming through strict constructionists."

So do I.

[Labyrinthos]

She is a lib - and proved it this week. She is on crack, as proven by her ruling on the sodomy case today.

Although she is certainly left of center, she is not a liberal like Ginzberg, Breyer, and Souter. And if you were to take a poll of Freepers you might find that a substantial minority, if not majority, agree with the sodomy decision.

[cksharks]

Bye Bye.

[Labyrinthos]

I haven't read the actual decision yet (as opposed to some reporter's summary) so I don't know if the decision is liberal or not. I do know that I frequently engage in behavior that meets most definitions of sodomy and I don't want big brother kicking in my door because someone things my behavior is immoral.

[sinkspur]

I'm done casting pearls.

Go insult somebody else.

[sinkspur]

So just come out of the closet and admit that you're a baby killer.

You join three days ago, and now you're an expert on everybody here, right?

GFY.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

"..if you were to take a poll of Freepers you might find that a substantial minority, if not majority, agree with the sodomy decision."

Then they should READ THE DECISION, as I have. The majority opinion is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever handed down, and completely destroys the whole notion of stare decisis (which is not all bad). The decision embraces the Gay Revolution and Roe v. Wade.

READ the entire decision before you embrace it. O'Connor is all over the place and contradicts the majority opinion in the Bowers case - which she was part of!!!! If you agree with the majority decision on this case, you agree with gay marriage and abortion on demand.

The best part (unfortunatly) of this decision today, is from the dissent:

By Scalia - which he read today:
"Today ’s opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish —or indeed,even bother to mention —the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today ’s majority in Planned Parenthood v.Casey. There,when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights,the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it..."

&

"What a massive disruption of the current social order,
therefore,the overruling of Bowers entails. Not so the
overruling of Roe ,which would simply have restored the
regime that existed for centuries before 1973, in which the
permissibility of and restrictions upon abortion were
determined legislatively State-by-State."

&

"Today ’s opinion is the product of a Court,which is the product of a law-profession culture,that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small)that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct."

[TransWorldForever]

If the supreme court is faced with ruling on abortion any time soon in the future, I think it would be of great importance and value to have a woman on the supreme court that would vote in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade... With the only woman on the court voting to uphold Roe v. Wade (Ginsburg), the Dems could make a huge fuss about abortion being outlawed by a bunch of old men. A conservative woman on the court would make a big difference.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I predict both Scalia and Renquist will retire.

[Labyrinthos]

If you agree with the majority decision on this case, you agree with gay marriage and abortion on demand.

I have not read any of today's decisions and will not have the time to do so until late tonight. I will withhold my response until then. I will say however, that I am against abortion on demand or for any other reason, including rape or incest; view gay marriage as a state issue not a constitutional crisis; and believe that government should regulate less of our lives, rather than more, particularly when the issue is consenual behavior between adults in the privacy of one's home.

The majority opinion... completely destroys the whole notion of stare decisis (which is not all bad).

Although I'm a big believer in stare decisis, the doctine is by no means absolute. If it was, then Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

Oh, please read the decision!!!! The majority make a mockery of stare decisis and use faulty logic to do so, as aptly pointed out by Scalia.

Scalia tears into the O'Connor/Majority opinion in this case saying their:
"...reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. JUSTICE O’CONNOR seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest.Ante ,at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage ” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas’s interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms:“preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.”In the jurisprudence JUSTICE O ’CONNOR has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as “preserving the traditions of society” ((good);or invalidate them by characterizing them as “expressing moral disapproval”(bad)."

&

"It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war,departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer,that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business,as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools,or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture,that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-
Discrimination Act of 1994,S.2238,103d Cong.,2d Sess.(1994); Civil Rights Amendments,H.R.5452,94th Cong., 1st Sess.(1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C.§654(b)(1)(mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service
member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts; and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a
constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.640 (2000).

&

"What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action,and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,”ante,at 18; and when that happens,later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

The majority ruling can be viewed as proof that this court has a liberal majority that will NEVER allow states to decide abortion, and that it WILL allow gay marriage, and might even force the military to openly accept gays. But I guess you don't have a problem with those things.

This is the worst decision in a generation.