Justice O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court

Friday, July 01, 2005

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justrice Sandra Day O'Connor (search)
submitted her retirement notice to President Bush on Friday, setting
the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.

"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.

O'Connor, 75, has served on the Supreme Court (search) for 24 years.
Two years ago, she wrote the book "The Majesty of the Law; Reflections
of a Supreme Court Justice," which was partly a personal account of
her experiences as the first woman named to the high court and partly
a historical look at the development of U.S. law.

Having women and minorities on the court helps the public accept
Supreme Court rulings, O'Connor said in a 2003 Associated Press
interview.

"It's not for me to say," whether racial, ethnic or gender diversity
on the court should be a goal, she said. "But I think it's been
desirable from the standpoint of public perceptions of fairness to see
a court that includes women and minorities."

O'Connor was a politician and a state trial judge in Arizona before
President Reagan chose her for the court in 1981. She drew on her
experience as a judge for a section of the book dealing with juries.

Jurors ought to be free to take notes during a trial, and even pose
written questions, O'Connor said. Only some states and courts allow
such departures from custom.

O'Connor tried to instruct her juries about the law at the beginning
of the case rather than at the end, she said.

"It seems to me when I listen to complicated things it helps me to
know ahead of time what I'm supposed to decide," O'Connor said. "I can
hear the arguments to better effect, and I think jurors can hear the
facts more effectively if they know ahead of time what specifically
they have to decide."

Her book contains some strong criticism of the way juries are now
chosen, including the reliance on outside jury consultants that some
believe "can virtually guarantee a verdict by stacking the jury with
people who fit the ideal demographic profile."

Even so, O'Connor said in the interview, she does not blame defense
lawyers for using whatever tools are available to them.

"Yet people who can't afford it are not going to have that benefit,
and you get a little nervous about how that might play out in terms of
fairness," O'Connor said.

One of the court's two swing votes, O'Connor often sides with more
conservative justices as she did in the Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000.
Although some lawyers and Republicans have said that ruling did not
really decide the election, O'Connor does not mince words in a brief
reference to the case in her book.

Bush v. Gore, she said, "held unconstitutional Florida's presidential
election recount procedures, and thereby determined the outcome of the
election."

O'Connor said her tenure on the high court probably has not hastened
the day when America will elect a woman president. But that day is
inevitable, she said.

The Supreme Court has no "overarching objective" when it comes to the
death penalty, despite a large number of recent cases wrestling with
the way capital punishment is carried out, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
says.

O'Connor was in the majority when the high court outlawed capital
punishment for the mentally retarded, but in the minority when
justices ruled that juries, not judges, must make the crucial
decisions that can lead to a death sentence.

"We aren't here trying to develop something in the sense of where the
country should go with this issue. We're a reactive institution,"
O'Connor said in an Associated Press interview Monday. "We proceed
case by case as they come to us, and not with any overarching
objective that the court itself" has developed.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Poppy wrote:

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick would have been excellent several years ago.

This means Dubya can nominate at least one Supreme Court justice now,
and if Rehnquist retires, he gets to nominate two.

Let the anti-Constitutional, oft-subversive Dim Party and its even more
disgusting camp followers engage in their activist scumbag behavior in
order to defend illegitimate judicial activism against true rule of law
and long-needed reform. They'll repel better Americans even more.
Think what that will mean for the 2006 elections and Hillary Clinton's
2008 White House prospects.

"bob" <robob68@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1120232260.882758.188810@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Think about that. She is a real life cowgirl. She rides a filly. She is a
filly buster in her own rite.


--
Why work when there's the government?

Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471

Stan wrote:
Alberto R. Gonzales

Justice O'Connor has been an outstanding member of the Supreme Court.
Anyone coming after her will have a difficult time living up to her
standards.

She is correct that there will be a woman president eventually.
Perhaps Condoleeza qill be the one.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:38:17 -0500, Earl Anthony
<earlanthony@hotmail.com> wrote:

First permission would have to be gotten from Ted Kennedy, Nasty
Pelosi, et al, but my money would go on Ted Olsen.

On 1 Jul 2005 07:51:40 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@aol.com> wrote:

A so-called moderate, O'Connor, leans heavily liberal. As of 2003,
O'Connor had voted with the rabid liberal, Ginsburg, on 75 percent
of the cases on which both had sat. Good riddance.

"Stan" <swilson435@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3il3kbFm3sopU1@individual.net...
Mine too.


--
Why work when there's the government?

Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471

Stan wrote:
cheers

bob

"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120233529.471229.149960@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
With the obstructionist in the Senate, he will probably get to nominate a
whole bunch of them.


--
Why work when there's the government?

Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471

"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120233601.240659.252840@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
Another in the same mold but certainly unknown by her choice, Ann Armstrong.


--
Why work when there's the government?

Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471

X-No-Archive:yes

I was prescient when I wrote about the possible Supreme Court
retirements of Rehnquist and/or O'Connor earlier in June. At that
time, I really thought that the Chief would be the one. Sandra Day
O'Connor has been a heroine of mine since she was seated on the court
by Ronald Reagan in 1981. I can't imagine a better role model for
women of our generation. Now, as she retires at age 75, she proves
something else. She knows "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em".
Hopefully she will have many happy years of retirement at home in the
west with her family and the open spaces she loves.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:33:57 -0700, Stan <swilson435@aol.com> wrote:

Let's just hope Doofus will nominate someone a lot more conservative
than Reagan did 24 years ago.

I find it ironic that when the Supremes make a ruling that you like, you say what a great ruling, but when you disagree it is judicial activism. I bet Scalia and Thomas is too liberal for some of you. O'Connor was a great justice because noone knew where she was going to fall on an issue. She never let her personal politics get in the way. She would rule on the law and nothing else. I wish they all would do that.