Justice O'Connor retiring

[MODU]

I just want someone that will read the Constitution and follow what it means, and not bend to whatever the wind of political change is blowing.  The Supreme Court is suppose to be isolated from all of that.

[Storebought]

Prayer is NOT banned in public schools.

But Storebought is certainly not the only one wholly ignorant of the true situation in that regard. This is another symptom of the backlash media of the past 10 years or so.

You seriously need to get over yourself.

From the original ruling of  Engel vs. Vitale:

We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been [370 U.S. 421, 425] religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found:

"The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme Court and State courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York Legislature has agreed.
"The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer, but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual heritage. . . ."4
The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of thebusiness of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Never mind that the NY School System composed a secular prayer that was completely voluntary for the students to recite, the Supreme Court banned it anyhow.

I'm glad, though, that this ruling is routinely ignored by anyone with moral sense. During my high school graduation, the principal, himself an ordained minister, lead the assembly with a completely Baptist convocation, complete with "...in the name of Jesus Christ we pray..."

Not that I'm Baptist, or even religious, it was nonetheless heartening to see the principle flout such a ridiculous court decision so prominently.

[AuH2O]

Roberts is also highly thought of in the legal community from what I understand.

The problem is that this is all politics, all the time, and always has been.

Garza has been around for a while-- he's older than many other potential nominees (late 50s)-- and is thought to be mainline conservative. He was a candidate in 1991 when HW Bush ultimately selected Thomas.

With rumors flying that Rehnquist will retire in the near future, things are very complicated.

My guess is Garza, then Luttig, and then if Stevens goes at some point, McConnell or Roberts, if Ginsburg goes, Clement or Owen.

[Emsworth]

Never mind that the NY School System composed a secular prayer

By definition, prayer is not secular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Students are free to recite prayers on their own. All the SC prohibited was the composition of official prayers by the government.

[MODU]

Never mind that the NY School System composed a secular prayer

By definition, prayer is not secular.

You can have non-religious affiliated prayer.  "god" (note the lowercase) is a generic term for a divine power.  Also, some do not even mention god/God, but rather start right with the substance of the prayer.  Some refer to this as meditation or spiritualism.

[Richard]

I'm hoping Stevens retire soon.  It'd be nice to have a Luttig + Brown on the Supreme Court.

[A18]

When is Bush expected to name a replacement?

[Storebought]

When is Bush expected to name a replacement?

I would hope that Bush has long since decided his replacement for O'Conner (likewise Rehnquist, and Stevens as well), in order to keep the Democrat creeps on the Judiciary committee (Leahy, Kennedy) from mounting a filibuster these few weeks.

[A18]

Um, how would deciding his replacement for O'Connor in advance keep the Democrats from filibustering?

[Storebought]

Um, how would deciding his replacement for O'Connor in advance keep the Democrats from filibustering?

I typed too fast: I meant, naming a replacment, then forcing that replacement through the Senate Justice committee as rapidly as possible. If I had a wish, this would take at most a month.

Filibusters don't just arise from thin air--they take weeks to (1) dig out "controversial" rulings (2) finding the right focus-group tested words to bleat in press conferences (3) raise money for attack ads, etc.

There are still a few senate Democrats wise enough (not) to launch and sustain a filibuster unprepared. 

[Smash255]

Busg stated that he would be a "uniter not a divider" he has been a divider up to this point.  He has a chance to become a uniter obn this issue, by picking a moderate to plass a moderate.  He picks an ultra conservative their will be a majo fight & he will be once again in the "divider" camp

[A18]

This isn't about making people happy. This is about the Constitution of the United States.

[Emsworth]

This isn't about making people happy. This is about the Constitution of the United States.

In principle, yes. But in practice, it is about making people happy, just like anything else political.

[A18]

A lot of people are going to be mad, regardless of who the president nominates.

[Dave from Michigan]

Bush better pick someone who is conservative and won't turn out moderate after thier appointed.

[A18]

It appears an announcement will not be made until after Bush returns from Europe next Friday.

[Citizen James]

Looking over the wiki listings, Kozinski doesn't look too bad.  Anyone have opinions on him?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Looking over the wiki listings, Kozinski doesn't look too bad.  Anyone have opinions on him?

"Doesn't look too bad" = not getting nominated by Bush.

[??????????]

Bring back Bork. A true American.

[A18]

Bring back Bork. A true American.

How about someone who won't die in, like, a year?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bring back Bork. A true American.

How about someone who won't die in, like, a year?

I say Gerald Ford would be good. He should live at least 2 more years.

[Brandon H]

I thought about Bork, but that won't happen.

Bush won the election and the Republicans maintained a majority in Congress. So he has the right to nominate whom he chooses. Does anyone really expect Bush to nominate a liberal?

I was opposed to the nuclear / constitutional option for the appelate and circuit court filibusters, but if a Supreme Court nominee is filibustered, I say go nuclear.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Washington, DC -- DNC Chair Howard Dean today applauded Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's service to the nation. He called on President Bush to follow the example set when President Reagan nominated Justice O'Connor by choosing consensus over conflict in selecting a nominee to fill the vacancy:

"As the first woman on the Court, Justice O'Connor is one of our nation's most important historical figures. Her retirement marks a truly significant moment. While we might not have agreed with all of her decisions, she has been a voice of moderation whose career was marked by a commitment to placing the law ahead of partisanship and ideology. It is crucial that the next Supreme Court Justice bring this philosophy to the highest court in the land."

"All Americans today are united in expressing our gratitude to Justice O'Connor for her service to our country: President Bush should choose to continue that unity. Americans deserve a dignified process, one that puts our democracy and the rights of all Americans ahead of partisanship and ideology.

"President Bush should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O'Connor. President Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist.

"A President faces no more important decision in terms of protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans than nominating a Supreme Court Justice. President Bush has a constitutional responsibility to do what presidents before him have done -- seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination, and choose a mainstream nominee who will protect our most important rights and freedoms.

"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."