BREAKING: O’Connor’s Letter of Resignation
BREAKING: O’Connor’s Letter of Resignation
Below is the text of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s letter of resignation to President Bush:
This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.
Sincerely,
Sandra Day O’Connor
UPDATE: From the AP — President Bush planned to make a statement at 11:15 a.m. EDT in the White House Rose Garden on her resignation. Spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush would not at that time be announcing a nominee to succeed her.
UPDATE (2): The Bush Standard on the new judicial appointment:
I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dark days are ahead.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:34 amIn the inimitable words of Scooby Doo: ruh-roh!
July 1st, 2005 at 10:44 amJust when I was starting to have hope, the clouds gather again. The Chief Justice is going to retire too, Scalia will be the new Chief, and we will have too extremist nominees for the SC – Bush won’t even think about nominating a moderate. He’ll be backing on the Democratics being too divided to do anything serious about it.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:56 amI like the standard Bush enunciated. Too bad he’s a lying weasel who means nothing he says.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:32 amWhat does “faithfully interpret” mean? Most of the stuff spouted by Bush is “faithfully interpreted” as BS and lies to better his Daddy’s pocket book.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:35 amScooby Doo? Wasn’t that Astro? Either way, I share your concern. This is not good news.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:36 amWill the democrats filibuster Bush’s pick to replace her?
July 1st, 2005 at 11:36 amIf they have anything left after the “nucular option” battle, the Bolton nomination battle…..they have to fight. I know one thing for sure, if Bush’s replacement choice is extreme (he’d never do that would he? ;) Barbara Boxer will fight. Are there other courageous Senators in DC. Will Biden and Lieberman step up to the plate on this or continue to consort with the bad guys?
Adrift…..you’ve never seen Astro and Scooby Doo in the same room have you? I’m thinking it’s the same dude…..:)
July 1st, 2005 at 11:42 amIf needed, I hope so Randy.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:43 amNice standard… But then he’s not going to say…
“I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential highly partisan nominees who meet my standard of legal ability, consistently make judgments against basic human rights, lack integrity, and who will faithfully re-interpret the Constitution and laws of our country to bend them to my will.”
Which is what he really means… isn’t it?
Z.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:48 amFortunately the Democrats did not give up the filibuster for Supreme Court appointees. The best that we can hope for is that Bush will nominate a moderate conservative like O’Connor, although a hard line right winger is much more likely. Even for those who are not religious, this may be a time for prayer.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:56 amLeaked standard -
July 1st, 2005 at 11:58 amFind me the meanest, nastiest SOB mofo you can find, preferably an African American female, but a mixed race asian of either gender will do. Just as long as they are willing to sell their own parents for a handful of gold.
Hey Jay — why are you saying Lieberman is a Democrat — since he lost the vp spot in 2000, he has turned out to be a Republican. If you listen to his comments on radio and television programs, you will hear a man that I am glad did not become vp. He is like the leopard that has changed his spots.
Now Biden, I want him for the Democrats next Presidential candidate.
And Bush is never going to give the American people a moderate. Totally against everything that Cheney has told him to do — you know how puppets work.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:21 pmAnd what would he and his staff know about integrity?
July 1st, 2005 at 12:22 pmthe one thing we’ve got going is that the repub leadership really doesn’t represent the repub base. they control congress and the white house — and if they really represented them abortion would now be illegal and terri schiavo would still be alive.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:46 pmare they intelligent enough to know they really don’t want roe v wade overturned? that the country will stand up against them? guess we’ll find out.
Dallas, I think both Lieberman and Biden are phony and epitomize the sold-out wing of the Democratic party. I’ve heard Biden speak many times on TV and radio and while I think he has taken it to Bush regarding the adminstrations failures in Iraq, he has no political courage. He’s been saying “we need to get this right in the coming months” for a year and half now and he still hasn’t withdrawn his support for our being there. For someone that gets so much airtime, he should be taking advantage by speaking the truth to the American people. He doesn’t do that. Not to mention his relationship with MBNA/BankofAmerica (see bankruptcy bill as giveaway to credit card companies). Oh and he’s also been outspoken in his opposition to Howard Dean which makes him a part of the problematic Dem party establishment. I think he is among the worst Democrats in the country.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:51 pmShouldn’t Bush nominate someone to balance the last judge appointed to the court? That would be Ginsberg, who is about as radical to the left as you can get. The court needs to interpret the constitution, not write it.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:03 pmYour scale of balance needs to be recalibrated Randy, try again.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pmRandy,
Why should they “balance” the last judge appointed? Why shouldn’t the aim be to balance the whole court? Given a supreme court consisting of 7 radical conservatives, and one radical liberal, wouldn’t adding a radical liberal make more sense than adding another radical conservative simply because the liberal was the last one appointed? The problem with only having radicals on the court is that every case will end up being X-Y because their are X liberals and Y conservatives (or vice versa). At least moderates are usually willing to look at both sides of the debate before deciding.
Ideally nobody would know the political beliefs of the judges because their judgements would be fair, balanced and obviously reasonable interpretations of the law.
Z.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pm“Shouldn’t Bush nominate someone to balance the last judge appointed to the court?”
Randy, shouldn’t the overall composition of the court be considered?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:14 pmMissing white girl on the Supreme Court…sniff. I guess timing is everything — even bad timing. Rest assured, Georgie will make the worst possible choice for her replacement. The Democrats have to get their sh*t together and fight like hell. If they don’t do it here, they won’t do it anywhere else.
Re Biden for president…I seem to remember a little scandal about plagarism the last time he ran. After what the Swifties did to Kerry, I would expect to see Biden shredded and blubbering in the corner. Too bad, but he’s a credit card company whore anyway.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:15 pmThis is almost scarier than Bush’s reelection for this country. If you’ve seen the possible nominees it’s going to be a dark time for women – the possible nominees are all white males, except for Gonzales. And of course, none of them are moderates.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:15 pmOnce again the U.S. will be seen as a weird political anomoly when the rest of the world is moving to a more progressive era.
Randy – your comment
?That would be Ginsberg, who is about as radical to the left as you can get.”
Ginsberg is neither radical nor to the left. Neo liberal yes. But radical left no. There are major differences between the two groups, as different as between radical left and radical right, or maybe even more different.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:17 pmZwack,
I too wish that the political beliefs of the judges were fair and balanced, but lets face it, they are not. These are lifetime appointments and they are not held accountable for their decisions. The democratic party has lost the majority in both houses and the white house. The judicial branch is their last stand to promote liberal views in this country. Who are the 7 radical conservatives on the court?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:19 pmAs if you don’t know, Randy. Who’s your favorites?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pmThe president had better send up a moderate judge – if he doesn’t, get ready for a strong filibuster!
By the way, there’s nothing radical about a filibuster. Is 60% of senators agreeing on a nominee too much to ask??
July 1st, 2005 at 1:36 pmMy money is on Brown
July 1st, 2005 at 1:38 pmRandy,
Re-read my comment…
It was purely hypothetical. Given X then wouldn’t Y be the best thing to do…
I don’t think that the supreme court consists of 7 radical conservatives and one radical liberal…
I don’t know enough about the supreme court rulings to declare individual judges liberal or not. Given that I find the “Beyond the fringe” sketch about America too true, I would probably list them all as being conservative, more or less conservative maybe, but all conservative…
For those who don’t know the “Beyond the fringe” sketch it laments the fact that Britain doesn’t have a strong belief in anything, unlike the Americans who believe in “Anti-communism” and describes their political system as
“A two party system, just like ours. They have the Republican party, which is just like our Conservative party, and they have the Democratic Party, which is just like our Conservative party.”
Read the whole skethc here… http://mailman.puissante.com/pipermail/skeptics-l/2004-August/003520.html
Z.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:41 pmI think Frist will pull the nuclear trigger if the democrats filibuster Bush’s nominee. He never agreed to the deal cut by McCain and six other senators. I think that there will be some republican senators eating crow and voting with Frist. In Ohio, Senator DeWine’s son ended up in fourth place in a special election to replace Portman. He had been the favorite prior to his dad’s decision on the filibuster deal.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:57 pm[...] What Consultation Looks Like In light of the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, there has been [...]
July 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pmRandy: Breyer was the last justice appointed, not Ginsberg…
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
July 1st, 2005 at 3:05 pmGeorge W. Bush in 08
Thats what you will get with the next appointment.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
The new justice will allow the constitution to be ammended for Bushie’s 3rd term.
The time is now.
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:23 amvotetoimpeach.org