Rehnquist Retirement?

[oceaneast]

News outlets are speculating Rehnquist will retire on Monday. If that happens who do you think will replace him as Chief Justice. (I don't even want to guess who will be appointed to the court).

[granada]

I think Scalia. The president appoints the chief justice, right? Bush has already said how much he likes Scalia.

But maybe he will appoint O'Connor so he can go down in history as the president who appointed the first female chief justice?

[kakirk]

*sigh* This thought is just enough to make me want to crawl into bed and cover my head for the next...however long this takes. Hopefully we'll get someone at least more towards the moderate side.

:rolleyes:

But maybe he will appoint O'Connor I just highly doubt this; even though she's widely considered "moderate" and a swing vote, I think she's way too left for the President's take. Scalia seems a more logical choice. Although, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if GWB doesn't elevate a current justice and brings in his own pick from outside.

Katie

[lawyerlee]

Although, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if GWB doesn't elevate a current justice and brings in his own pick from outside.
I agree. I think he might appoint Alberto Gonzales.

[granada]

I agree about O'Connor. I think she's written some opinions that he probably wasn't too happy with. But I read an article speculating about that possibility, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Although, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if GWB doesn't elevate a current justice and brings in his own pick from outside.

For some reason, this made me laugh. I guess I wouldn't be surprised at anything anymore with GWB.

[lawyerlee]

There is speculation that O'Connor could retire, too. :confused:

I was reading this article on the topic and thought you guys might find it interesting like I did. :)

2 top candidates for Supreme Court share long history (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/politics/11986257.htm)

BY JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - When Mike Luttig stood up as a groomsman in John Roberts' wedding here nine years ago, more than a few people could have predicted they again would someday be sharing the spotlight.

They'd been young leaders in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and both had made deep impressions as being exceedingly smart and exceptionally well-disciplined. Each was the first in his family to become a lawyer, and both had clerked on the Supreme Court.

On that July day in 1996, Luttig was on his way to becoming one of the nation's most prominent federal appeals court judges. Roberts was building a record as one of the best appellate lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court.

They've worked for some of the same important people, crossed the same prestigious paths. They've been friends more than 20 years, since their days together in the Reagan administration.

But now they find themselves competitors, standing in a spotlight that soon could shine only on one. Federal appeals court Judges J. Michael Luttig and John Roberts Jr. have emerged as two of the leading contenders to take over the center seat of the U.S. Supreme Court if Chief Justice William Rehnquist should retire.

"When you talk about people being the total package, they are - both in the sense of intellect, personalities, balance," said Richard Hauser, who was deputy White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan and worked with both of them. "It's not surprising they're prominently mentioned, and in my view, deservedly so."

With the speculation over Rehnquist's retirement now at a fever pitch, the White House has finished its background work on possible nominees and narrowed a list of possible candidates to a handful of federal judges and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It would be President Bush's first opportunity to name a justice to the court, and it could come as early as this week.

[oceaneast]

Now I feel a little sick. I didn't know she was planning on retiring.

[kakirk]

I think he might appoint Alberto Gonzales. Lord have mercy. :eek: :p :mad: :rolleyes:

I hope O'Connor doesn't retire...I hope she sees the extremeness of our president and waits for someone different to fill her spot. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

*sigh*

K

[maggieb]

Yeah, I just heard that O'Connor is possibly retiring as well and if she does first, then Rehnquist would stay on for a while longer.

I also wish she would stay on til gwb is out. I can't imagine 2 justice positions open with gwb in office. Scary! :eek:

[oceaneast]

It would be strange for two retirements to occur on the same day. Has that happened before???

[kemaji]

Yeah, I just heard that O'Connor is possibly retiring as well and if she does first, then Rehnquist would stay on for a while longer.

I also wish she would stay on til gwb is out. I can't imagine 2 justice positions open with gwb in office. Scary! :eek:

Oh, that's enough to make me sick. It's bad enough that one will most likely retire, but TWO???

[maggieb]

I know. It is frightening. I don't think that Rehnquist would retire right away if O'Connor did, but I guess if they're both about to retire, then it will happen under gwb's reign. Yikes!

[lawyerlee]

Who May Succeed Rehnquist (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-na-candidates26jun26,1,102744,print.story?coll=la-health-medicine&ctrack=1&cset=true) LA Times
If the ailing chief justice steps down, Bush will select a conservative. There are clear differences among a dozen likely candidates.

By David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writers

June 26, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court wraps up its term this week amid intense speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ailing with cancer, is poised to announce his retirement.

If he does retire, there is one sure bet: President Bush will get a chance in the weeks ahead to choose a new leader for the Supreme Court, and he will pick a conservative.

But the kind of conservative the president selects could determine whether there is an epic, summerlong fight over the Supreme Court.

The White House counsel's office, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, has compiled a list of a dozen possible nominees to the high court — and all of them are considered conservative. Most are judges on the U.S. appeals courts.

All of them can expect to be opposed by liberal interest groups, which have spent the last four years gearing up to fight Bush's court nominees.

Several top candidates could look forward to a relatively easy confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. They include: Judges John G. Roberts Jr., 50, a cautious and highly regarded Bush appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.; J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 60, a scholarly veteran judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; and Michael W. McConnell, 50, a former University of Chicago law professor who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.

If named by Bush, they would be likely to have the support of the Senate's 55 Republicans and stand a good chance of picking up Democratic votes.

The same is true of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 49. A former Texas Supreme Court justice and White House counsel during Bush's first term, Gonzales would be the first Latino to serve on the high court.

But if the president chooses to set off a big fight, he may name a judge who has shown a more hard-edged ideology and a determination to push the law to the right. That could include Judge J. Michael Luttig, 51, an appellate judge in Virginia, or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — whom Bush has called his favorite justices.

[lawyerlee]

Speculation continues on Rehnquist, O'Connor retirements (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0624retire24.html#)

Gina Holland
The Associated Press
Jun. 24, 2005 12:12 PM

WASHINGTON- When it comes to Supreme Court retirements, expect the unexpected.

In the past, some justices have announced departure plans in late June before the court takes its annual three-month break. Others have pulled surprises, like waiting until a Friday night to put out a press release, or showing up at the White House for a big announcement.

With only a few days before the term ends on Monday, most of the speculation this year has focused on the retirement prospects of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has cancer and is 80, although the name of 75-year-old Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is often mentioned as well.

There have been no clues that someone is leaving, which has only added to the intrigue because no justices have retired in 11 years - a modern-era record.

"What they need are puffs of white smoke from the Supreme Court building," said A. E. Dick Howard, an expert on the high court at the University of Virginia.

[lawyerlee]

I think it is highly unlikely that GWB will promote someone within the Court if Rehnquist does retire tomorrow. Or next week. Or whenever. It is very rare for the next Chief to come from within the Court, for one thing, and it would be a much more difficult fight for confirmation.

[oceaneast]

I'm going to be nervous all day tomorrow. However, if its not this year it would probably be next. How many justices potentially have been speculated to retire during GWB term?

[RobynScott]

This is so scary - admittedly, an interesting time to live though - but SCARY! Why couldn't people think about this in November? well - maybe they did and I'm just outnumbered .... very scary indeed!

[oceaneast]

I think some were thinking about it at the election, but we have a tendency to think if it isn't actually happening at the time we can ignore it.

[oceaneast]

On MSNBC I read this: "Also expected are nine women in judicial robes who call themselves “Roe Rangers,” to bring attention to uncertainty about the court’s makeup and abortion rights."

Who are the "Roe Rangers"?

[lawyerlee]

No retirements announced at court (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8357530/) MSNBC

But Supreme Court justices could make statements later

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ended its term Monday with no retirement announcements from any justices.

A retirement could come later, however, in a letter to the president or press release.

In court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist struggled to talk and thanked court employees for their work over the past year before he adjourned the term.

Justices ruled in several major cases, including Ten Commandments appeals from Texas and Kentucky and a case involving illegal online swapping of songs and movies.

Rehnquist, 80, handled one of the Ten Commandment cases and had to clear his throat several times. He breathed heavily and kept the announcement brief. The chief justice has thyroid cancer and a trachea tube to help him breathe.

Most of the retirement speculation has focused on Rehnquist, who has cancer, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75.

Hundreds of people waited for seats in the courtroom. The first people arrived at 1 a.m. and brought blankets.

“There’s enormous drama and anticipation. Is he going to announce his resignation? Are we going to spend this summer in a confirmation fight?” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke law professor.

“It’s a big day. History being made, that’s a lot of what it’s about,” said Maureen Mahoney, a Washington lawyer and former Rehnquist law clerk.

Also expected among the public are nine women in judicial robes who call themselves “Roe Rangers,” to bring attention to uncertainty about the court’s makeup and abortion rights.

Watching Rehnquist

On its final day, the justices ruled on the legality of public displays of the 10 Commandments -- and on the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients’ illegal swapping of songs and movies.

But overshadowing it all was Rehnquist’s health and questions about the future of the court, which has not had a vacancy for 11 years, a modern record.

“More people are paying attention to the court than they have in years even though the docket has not been earthshaking,” said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings and a former Supreme Court clerk. “It changes the importance of this year in Supreme Court history.”

In addition to Rehnquist, 80, older members of the court include O'Connor, and Justice John Paul Stevens, 85.

Rehnquist was absent from the bench for five months after disclosing in October that he had cancer. He has refused to say whether he has the most serious type of thyroid cancer. He speaks with difficulty because of a trachea tube inserted to help him breathe.

“One or two justices may announce their retirement on Monday. Or none may,” said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in the Supreme Court. “In the past there has not been this kind of anticipation.”

Rehnquist could wait until later in the day after justices hold their last private meeting of the term to make an announcement. He also could wait until later in the week, after the crowds have left the court.

[lawyerlee]

On MSNBC I read this: "Also expected are nine women in judicial robes who call themselves “Roe Rangers,” to bring attention to uncertainty about the court’s makeup and abortion rights."

Who are the "Roe Rangers"?
I think it's a group affiliated with Planned Parenthood's "Save Roe" movement.

[lawyerlee]

Well, no retirement yet. I wonder if anything will happen this summer. :confused:

[lawyerlee]

Frist, Reid Talk Potential Court Nominees (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050629/D8B10A6O0.html)

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he's been talking to Democratic leader Harry Reid about nominees for a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court but doesn't have any inside information on whom President Bush might nominate.

"Have Senator Reid and I talked about individual names? Yes, we have in the privacy of our regular meetings," Frist said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. He wouldn't say whom he and Reid had discussed or characterize their chances in front of the Senate.

Reid later offered four names of people he said would be good for the court: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They "are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members," Reid said.

Reid also said that in a conversation with the justices last week, they said that "they thought what would be a good idea is to start calling people from outside the judicial system."

"I think that's something that we should listen to. And I've conveyed this to anyone that will listen," Reid said.

Fourteen senators have served on the Supreme Court. The revolving door has turned the other way only once: David Davis resigned from the court in 1877 to represent Illinois in the Senate as an independent.

Democrats sent a letter to the White House last week asking for Bush to consult with them on making a Supreme Court pick. "To this stage, there hasn't been much. But I'm confident there will be," Reid said.

Frist said the White House has already started.

"I think the president and the administration have reached out to solicit names and solicit ideas," Frist said. "I don't want to speak for the administration, but I know that's being done. They are reaching out for suggestions."

Court watchers expect a Supreme Court vacancy during Bush's second term. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, has cancer, and there is talk that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, and John Paul Stevens, 85, also might consider stepping down.

Frist said that senators are still negotiating on exactly how a Supreme Court confirmation process would go, since more than half of the current senators were not there for the last confirmation.

Fifty-six senators, including nine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were not in the Senate when Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed in July 1994.

"So, we're spending a lot of time at the senator level and at the staff level looking at the different phases of the nomination process," said Frist, who also wasn't around for the last Supreme Court nomination.

Frist called upon Democrats to not filibuster judicial nominees. "Senators should treat every nominee with dignity and respect and give them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. And that includes any potential Supreme Court nominee should there be a vacancy," Frist said.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called on Bush to pick a consensus candidate if a vacancy comes open. "Americans want to be brought together around this decision, but Bill Frist wants to divide our country to serve his own political goals," she said.

[maggieb]

Looks like it happened!

:eek:

O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago


Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly.

"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

Little more than an hour later, Bush praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." He said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."

O'Connor's decision — so closely held that a son did not know in advance — marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.

O'Connor's decision capped a pioneer's career. President Reagan broke nearly 200 years of tradition when he tapped her — a top-ranked graduate of Stanford law school — for the high court.

Over time, she evolved into a moderate conservative, but more importantly, a majority maker.

She voted with a 5-4 majority, for example, on the case that effectively awarded the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush. She was on the winning side again when the court upheld the right of women to have an abortion if their health were in danger.

She expressed her views pungently at times. Last week, in a dissent in a 5-4 ruling that let local governments take personal property to build malls and other businesses, she wrote that the majority had unwisely handed more power to the powerful.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing ... any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Bush pledged to send a nomination to the Senate in time for a vote by the time the court begins its new term in October, but aides said it would not be before he returns from a scheduled trip to Europe on July 8. He said he and his administration would consult with lawmakers, and said "the nation deserves a dignified" confirmation debate.

One official said Bush's "short list" did not include any women, for example. O'Connor's retirement leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only woman among eight remaining justices.

O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay. She had breast cancer in 1988.

Already, battle lines were forming in anticipation of a summer confirmation contest in the Senate.

"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.

"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.

Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion — an issue that divides the court as it does the country.

She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion — and also from others who argue the right is a given.

O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right. Commentators called O'Connor the nation's most powerful woman, but O'Connor poo-poohed the thought.

"I don't think it's accurate," she said in an Associated Press interview.

The enormity of the reaction to O'Connor's appointment had surprised her. She received more than 60,000 letters in her first year, more than any one member in the court's history.

"I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country," she once said. "It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It's important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves."

At times, the constant publicity was almost unbearable. "I had never expected or aspired to be a Supreme Court justice. My first year on the court made me long at times for obscurity," she once said.

---

Material below dash will stand

---

On the court, O'Connor generally favored states in disputes with the federal government and for enhanced police powers challenged as violative of asserted individual rights.

In 1985, she wrote for the court as it ruled that the confession of a criminal suspect first warned about his rights may be used as trial evidence even if police violated a suspect's rights in obtaining an earlier confession.

O'Connor wrote the 1989 decision that struck down as an unconstitutional form of affirmative action a minority set-aside program for construction projects in Richmond, Va.

In 1991, she led the court as it ruled in its first-ever decision on rape-shield laws that states may under some circumstances bar evidence that a defendant and his alleged victim previously had consensual sex.

O'Connor once described herself and her eight fellow justices as nine fire fighters.

"When (someone) lights a fire, we invariably are asked to attend to the blaze. We may arrive at the scene a few years later," she said.

O'Connor was 51 when she joined the court to replace the retired Potter Stewart. A virtual unknown on the national scene until her appointment, she had served as an Arizona state judge, and before that as a member of her state's Legislature.

A fourth-generation Arizonan, she had grown up on a sprawling family ranch.

The woman who climbed higher in the legal profession than had any other member of her sex did not begin her career auspiciously. As a top-ranked graduate of Stanford's prestigious law school, class of 1952, O'Connor discovered that most large law firms did not hire women.

One offered her a job as a secretary. Perhaps it was that early experience that shaped O'Connor's professional tenacity. She once recalled a comment by an Arizona colleague: "With Sandra O'Connor, there ain't no Miller time."

"I think that's true," confessed the justice whose work week most often extended beyond 60 hours.

But she played tennis and golf well, danced expertly with her husband, and made frequent appearances on the Washington party circuit.

O'Connor was embarrassed in 1989 after conservative Republicans in Arizona used a letter she had sent to support their claim that the United States is a "Christian nation."

O'Connor said she regretted the letter's use in a political debate. "It was not my intention to express a personal view on the subject of the inquiry," she said.

[BryantRN]

Sad, sad, sad day for women's rights.

~Renee~