The feds ratchet CunningScam up a notch — just in from Roll Call (sub req’d):

Federal agents on Friday searched the offices of a defense contractor tied to Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) as well as the boat Cunningham lived on for more than a year, the latest sign of a growing investigation into the relationship between Cunningham and Mitchell Wade, founder of MZM Inc.

A federal task force that includes officials from the U.S. Attorney’s offices in both Washington, D.C, and San Diego, the FBI, Internal Revenue Service and Defense Criminal Investigative Service conducted the searches, according to Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s Washington office.

Weierman would not discuss details of the probe, although she confirmed that the FBI has “some operations that are going on today” related to the Cunningham investigation.

Update: Two other interesting graphs from the Roll Call story below. Apparently the Duke-Stir is now for sale, and Cunningham is listed as the contact on the flyers. Ouch. Read more

Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins — the lead organizer behind the offensive “Justice Sunday” event — has issued a release attacking retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as a “judicial activist” and suggesting his organization’s grassroots supporters are “primed for a fight” over the next Supreme Court nominee.

Perkins’ release notes, “The Family Research Council often found itself on the opposite side of [O'Connor's] most controversial decisions. This past week Justice O’Connor sided with judicial activists and ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments on public property in two cases before the high court that have offended the values of a great segment of the American public.”

Perkins claims he is “confident that President Bush will name a replacement for Justice O’Connor who has the same judicial philosophy as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he indicated he would in his reelection campaign.”

So much for compromise.

When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:

[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

How will President Bush treat Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the current ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee?

In light of the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, there has been a lot of talk about “consultation.” Unfortunately, President Bush thus far has shown little willingness to seek bipartisan consulation on his nominees. Instead, he has “closely consulted with right-wing groups” and let other senators “not hear of prospective nominees until they learned of them through media reports.” And even Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was left to admit “that genuine consultation did not take place with respect to the first round of Bush nominees.”

But the nomination and confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice does not have to be a knock down-drag out fight. Here are two recent examples — that it would do Bush well to heed — of just how effective consultation can be when a President is nominating a justice to the Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Nominated: June 14th, 1993
Confirmed: August 3rd, 1993
Consultation: Yes

Minority Reaction:

I think it’s an excellent choice,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. ‘She’s going to make a very excellent justice.’ Hatch, who said he was consulted frequently by the White House as Clinton zeroed in on a nominee, promised cooperation and said the committee would ‘certainly try to get her confirmed before the first Monday in October, when the court convenes. [AP, 6/14/93]

Confirmation Vote: 96-3
Read more

In 5-4 cases, Justice O’Connor often served as the voice of moderation, upholding common-sense values and principles. Below is a list of 5-4 decisions where O’Connor sided with the majority:

O’Connor Preserved Representation For All In Congressional Districting

In 2001, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Hunt v. Cromartie (later renamed Easley v. Cromartie,) to uphold the use of race as a factor in drawing a congressional district, where it was not the “dominant and controlling” factor. [New York Times, 4/19/01]

O’Connor Preserved Diversity On College Campuses

In June, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program. Writing for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

O’Connor Preserved A Woman’s Right to Choose

Declaring that a state may “not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion,” Justice Breyer expressed the 5-4 majority decision, with O’Connor joining, to strike down a Nebraska law that banned late-term abortion procedures. The case was Stenberg vs. Carhart.

In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a 5-4 majority upheld a woman’s right to chose, but allowed states to place restrictions on that right so long as they do not “place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/30/92]

O’Connor Fought To Uphold Civil Liberties In Time of War

In Rasul v. Bush, which involved foreigners held at Guantanamo, O’Connor joined Stevens majority opinion asserting that United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Read more

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.