Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement.

Story developing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_ ... s_o_connor

O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.
ADVERTISEMENT

O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.

"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."

The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

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.

Whoa, I didn't expect her to step down before Rehnquist or even Stevens.

Let the games begin: this has the potential to get nasty.

Goddamnit.

All I can say is SHIT!

Better she retires now before she becomes a complete Timmy like Rehnquist.

Hmm, this means the traditional tie-breaking vote on abortion is out. I can see the confirmation hearings on the new justice going something like this:

Democrats: "Are you going to vote for or against abortion?"
Nominee: "For."
Democrats: "Confirmed!"

-or-

Nominee: "Against."
Democrats: "Filibuster!"

Yeah, this is going to go really well.

I thought Roe v. Wade was a 6-3 decision.

Dubya gets to make an appointment now, no?

Wouldn't it be awesome to see a man or woman 35 years of age with majorly massive PhD's in criminal justice and political science and constitutional law and some such, take her spot? Does such a person exist?

c-

I don't really sweat this too much to be honest. As I said before in another thread, the SC always seems to rise above the partisan rhetoric of the times and even if I don't support the decision, they seem to make a good case for their argument either way.

Even if it was (I don't doubt it - just that I don't have the facts), the court today is significantly more conservative. Scalia for instance who wasn't part of the original Roe v Wade decision has indicated that he'd overturn it. Etc.

O'Connor's resignation means conservatives have a shot at replacing a Roe v Wade supporter with a Roe v Wade dissenter. So if yesterday's vote would be 5-4, now there's a shot at it being 4-5 the other way.

Hope that makes sense.

On another note... surely there's more at stake here than just Roe v Wade.

O'Connor is considered the swingvote on most abortion cases, particularly ones dealing with late-term abortions.

There is, you're not just not going to here very much about the other issues.

Again, this is another issue that to me highlights the flaws in stating that people are either "liberal" or "conservative." I support some conservative ideals like state's rights. I think if a state legalizes medical marijuana, that should be honored. I highly doubt we'll end up with some wackjob neocon on the SC, akin to a Tom DeLay or Bill Frist.

It's astonishing that this even becomes an issue of public debate. None of this talk does anything except call into question cornerstone concepts of democracy like judicial independence and separation of powers.

A good judge is a legalistic judge, just like a good lawyer is a legalistic lawyer, and law and politics should not intermingle when it comes to key issues.

Ideally, the general public should not have an inkling of what presidential vote justices of the Supreme Court would cast. Unfortunately, Bush v. Gore put paid to all of that. I think it was Stevens who said: "the real loser today is the American people's perception of judicial independence" (or something like that). He was right.

Everyone should be rooting for a Constitutionalist, so we don't end up with any more of this absurdity: http://www.theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10343

It's time to move past the abortion issue.
Bush will have two more picks after this one; Roe v. Wade will be overturned eventually.

Could you elaborate on that please?

I'd be happy with anyone who doesn't think the meaning of the Constitution is frozen in the 18th century. Ie. not an originalist like Scalia or Bork etc.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is what leads to perversions of the constitution like Kelo v. New London.

If a certain part of the constitution is so completely out of step with modern times(perhaps you could point it out to me), there is a legislative process to amend it.