Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will retire.
Sandra Day O'Connor has been an influential swing vote on the high court. Appointed by President Reagan, she has often taken a liberal position in many court decisions. She has frequently been seen as the key vote in preventing the Supreme Court from overturning Roe v. Wade.
Justice O'Connor served from 1975-79 as Maricopa County Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.. Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979. President Reagan nominated Judge O'Connor for Associate Justice on July 7, 1981. The United States Senate confirmed her on September 21, 1981. She took oath on September 25, 1981, as the first woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
What's Next?
The Chicago Tribune lists pros and cons of possible replacements. Analysts narrow the field to three front runners:
-
Judge J. Michael Luttig, 4th U.S. Court of Appeals (Richmond) — is a crisp writer and principled conservative
-
Judge Samuel Alito 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) — Sometimes called "Scalito" because of his similarities in opinion to Antonin Scalia, another favorite with conservatives and for the same reason a target for liberals
-
Judge John Roberts, U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. — Considered one of the best lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court in recent years, he only recently landed on the bench — so there's little known about his opinions
Others on the short list are considered longshots:
-
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — a long time friend and political partner to President Bush, but conservative groups would oppose him as too moderate. Liberals would focus on his role in suggesting the Geneva Conventions could be circumvented in the War on Terror
-
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, 4th U.S. Court of Appeals (Richmond)-- a former editor at the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, and member of the Reagan Justice Department is 61 years old. His age could be a big strike against him.
-
Judge Michael McConnell, 10th U.S. Court of Appeals (Denver) — considered very unpredictible, conservative on some issues, liberal on others. He also argued against the reasoning of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that put President Bush in the White House in 2000
-
Judge William Pryor, 11th U.S. Court of Appeals (Atlanta) — has been very critical of Roe v. Wade, making him politically polarizing. A serious long-shot.
Expect the White House to act in less than 24 hours to make their nominations. Speed is essential to minimize political infighting over who should get the nomination.
Continued on the next page
Page 1 — Page 2
Spread the word
Article comments
1 - Aaman
The least you can do is spell her name right - it is "O'Connor" - helps in the Google search, besides showing that you do some proof reading.
Also, what's happening in 6 hours to require the nomination?
2 - Terry Turner
Gee, Aaman, missed one "e."
The White House wants a quick nomination to stave off efforts to blunt their nomination.
Six hours is what everyone's been talking about as the White House reaction time for a couple of weeks now.
3 - Eric Olsen
they were all "e's" - I changed them
4 - Terry Turner
Thanks Eric.
I'm a bit dyslectic -- seriously.
5 - Lisa Iannucci
actually, the word is "dyslexic"...
Lisa I., your humble Politics editor
6 - Eric Olsen
Terry, I understand, just please go over spelling carefully before and after publishing, especially names.
7 - JR
Dyslectic is when you get your theses and antitheses mixed up.
8 - Aaman
Like your dialectic and your analectic? That would make some people apopoletic
9 - Mark Saleski
i'm a dyslexic atheist...i don't believe in dog.
hardy, har, har.
10 - Steve S
someone told me that if there wasn't anybody retiring until the fall, then a nomination couldn't go through until the next election anyway, and all we (liberals) had to do was hope no one retires before the fall.
Does it take that long for a nomination?
How does the process change if Bush nominates someone in 6 hours or in 6 days?
11 - Terry Turner
The time really plays into the politics. The idea is if you get someone out there fast, you don't have the other side defining the debate the way they want to.
But the White House now says President Bush will wait until July 8 to make a nomination.
A conservative group has already been airing TV commercials in some markets defining the debate -- so expect more of that sort of thing until we really know the person up for nomination.
The White House has a "short-list." With the delay, they may let the debate simmer, allow public opinion to gel, then play to that or nominate someone who blows the left's arguments out of the water -- making them start from scratch.
12 - JR
If they give people enough time to mull over the candidates, we can debate their merits without being accused of anti-Bush bias. If he throws up a nominee right away, anybody who criticizes his choice can be painted as 'obstructionist'.
13 - Aaman
Here's what's missing in this post - the factoid that Justice O'Connor has retired - one had no clue until I switched to a news site. A report needs to state the facts, not assume the readers know them.
Otherwise, fine report
14 - Aaman
Also, he would give the impression of not being 'deliberate and thorough' if he nominates someone too soon.