Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

Thanks for the info. That second site has some really cool stuff on it. I particularly liked the "The Toyota Principle" one. He seems to have a lot of common sense approaches coupled with an impressive legal resume' all of which, as you already said, probably means he will not be considered.

 

That is so cool! One doesn't usually think of judges as having much charisma. Sounds like this guy has it in loads. (He evn built his own computer! Haha)

 

Law can change. Separate but equal was the law of the land until Brown v. Board of Education.

 

Out of that list, I think I'd be happy with Wilkinson, McConnell, Garza, Clement or Alito. I'd be horrified by the nomination of Brown (the whole "Christian victim" bit is a disturbing trait in a Justice), Cornyn (So weak in his views that he went from Moderate to Cheerleader in record time), Gonzales (anybody that can approve of torture by using legalese has no place on the high court), Jones (she's another one who seems more concerned with "morality" than "Constitutionality"), Luttig (appears to be a total partisan), and Olson (possibly lied under oath and was involved in an essentially anti-President movement. Folks like that from either side are not suitably objective for the high court).

I have slight reservations about Thompson (ties to big business as a major company exec) and Roberts (partisan, but not a "movement" partisan, q and seems to be anti-conservation of wildlife)

 

Former Sen. Fred Thompson has been selected by the Bush Administration to be the man in charge of shepherding through the Senate whomever the Preisdent selects as his nominee. They're referring to him at the White House as the Sherpa.

 

A great choice of words.

If I were more internet savvy, I would post that picture of the sheep watching Bush on tv.

 

Jacen=> Love to hear where you found this and more detail if it exists... let me know.

 

That comment is not intellectually-based, that comment is emotionally-charged. Try winning elections, first.

 

If the question of judicial activism rears its ugly head, there's always this.
It turns out Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia are the most likely of the current justices to vote to overturn a federal law, which most of us would define as fairly activist.
I know that the judicial record of any nominee will be scrutinized pretty closely, but I would find it particularly interesting to see these numbers, especially since Bush as repeatedly lauded Scalia and Thomas as models of judicial behavior.

 

It was found in his bio in the WP link that was in my post. Here is the relevant part:

 

Perhaps other people define it differently, but I would define activist as substituting one's beliefs for the text of the Constitution (in the event a law is challenged as unconstituional). I think you can quite reasonably argue that many laws passed by recent Congresses are of suspect constitutionality.

 

Jason, your quote says:

Where does it say the inquiry FOUND PROOF he had actually been untruthful? It merely states there was an inquiry (witchhunt?).

Besides, David Brock is a ex-conservative who, since jumping over to the other side, does nothing but character assassinate conservatives whenever he gets the opportunity. The man's a scumbag.

 

Half the point is that there isn't a singular definition of judicial activism beyond "decisions that I don't like". The other half is that when Republicans moan on about judicial activism, one of the things they usually mention is 'thwarting the will of Congress'. Afterall, a popular idea in some conservative quarters is that judicial review is a dubious notion at best. Regardless of which, the three justices most likely to vote to overturn a federal law are GOP appointees, two of whom are well known as doctrinaire conservatives.
If Bush manages to find a nominee who has ranted against judicial activism while taking advantage of a majority of opportunities to over turn federal law (or state law for a state judge), then we'll all know it's just another garden variety GOP hypocrit.

 

Which is why the courts have the power of judicial review. The only quantifiable measure for "judicial activism" is how many times the courts overturn the legislature.

After all, isn't that how the argument goes? Judges, elected by no one and serving under a lifetime grant of authority, usurp the will of the people as expressed by the elected rperesentatives.

 

Where did I claim that there was proof found? My reasoning for not wanting Olson on the SC was this:

The fact that there was even a decent chance that he perjured himself and was involved in an attempt at character assassination (of the President) says to me that there are better choices available. Anyone who is so entrenched in Partisan Politics doesn't merit a place on the high court. I wouldn't want Bill Clinton, Michael Moore or George Soros nominated either, FWIW. It's possible for Bush to nominate a conservative judge without nominating a political hack. That's all I'm looking for, and, as I said, I would be happy with a few of the choices shown in the short list from that article.

 

Jacen: Thanks for posting that detail; I've heard the claims and they all look like trumped up stuff on Ted Olsen, who's record is indeed spotless! The inquiry didn't find anything and you can't fault someone because of an inquiry, which was no doubt Democrat driven (I'm guessing by Soros' money)!

Ted Olsen's record is clean and he should be a leading contender for the High Court!

 

You missed my follow-up post to River Plate. Even IF the inquiry was nothing but a witch hunt, Olsen was heavily involved in partisan politics based on the articles he wrote for the American Spectator. I don't want a politician on the high court. I want a judicial scholar, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal. I want someone who can look at a case, put their political beliefs aside and make a decision based on Consititutional law. With Olsen's political background, I'm not convinced that he can do that. At the very least, I feel there are three or four people on that "short list" that are likely to do a better job.

 

Then I guess we just disagree... I think this type of person is precisely the type we need on the High Court! Simply because Olsen wrote scholarly albeit political articles does not make him less of a legal mind, but more!

Everyone's a politician today Jacen; it's just a matter of degree!

 

Well, in truth, that's all he's ever done. He's kind of a one-trick pony, no matter which side he's writing for.

 

I could understand if my post was way back at the beginning of the thread or in another thread altogether, but my original post was only 15 posts ago (ie: on the previous page of this thread). This is what I said: