The Command Post
Politics & Elections
July 01, 2005
United States | Justice O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court [Updated - Blog links]
Supreme Court Justrice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her retirement notice to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.

Bush is scheduled to speak from the White House Rose Garden at 11:15 a.m. EDT to announce the retirement. Sources said he will not be naming a potential successor for O'Connor.

"Dear 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 priviledge 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," O'Connor wrote.

Read more....

Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman and the 102nd person to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judicial Offices:
Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on July 7, 1981; confirmed by the United States Senate on September 22, 1981; and took oath of office on September 25, 1981.

Appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by Governor Bruce Babbitt and served from 1979 to 1981.

Elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona. and served from 1975 to 1979.

Some quotes from Justice O'Connor:

  • A moment of silence is not inherently religious.
  • Do the best you can in every task, no matter how unimportant it may seem at the time. No one learns more about a problem than the person at the bottom.
  • Having family responsibilities and concerns just has to make you a more understanding person.
  • I don't know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job.
  • It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself.
  • It is difficult to discern a serious threat to religious liberty from a room of silent, thoughtful schoolchildren.
  • My hope is that 10 years from now, after I've been across the street at work for a while, they'll all be glad they gave me that wonderful vote.
  • Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment.

We hold that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activity known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state that may be taken into account in making a capital sentencing judgment not inevitable, lethal result.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles. Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father.

Thoughts from Orin Kerr

Lots of talk over at The Corner

Supreme Court Nomination Blog

How Appealing

Bench memos at National Review

Just keep scrolling down at Daily Kos

Michelle Malkin



Posted by Michele at July 1, 2005 10:53 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?