That's correct. She was considered moderate-conservative on most issues. However, she was a swing vote on many issues and broke away from her conservative colleagues, especially on abortion. Be prepared for women's groups to get heavily involved in the process to replace her as they rightly should.

Gonzales probably wouldn't have complete Republican support. He is for a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion.

Oh shit, this is BAD news.

All you adult guys that voted Bush, well we told you this would happen. Now the Bush administration gets to place at least one and probably two Justices.

We need to pray we don't get another Scalia. That would be a major train wreck for us.

I guess that shows how much you really know about the Supreme Court.

1. She was the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Cour.
2. She is typically regarded as a 'moderate', not a liberal. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg holds that distinction.

Yeah, well, it's the Democrats that fucked everyone on this deal... They don't have any choice but to confirm whomever Bush wants... otherwise the 'constitutional option" (commonly referred to as the 'nukular' option by the media) will most likely be envoked and then we're all fucked right up there along with Roe v. Wade.

both have a shot at the filibuster.

lets hope Rehnquist lasts another 3 years.

lets hope we get another swing vote in o'connors seat.

lets just all put our heads between our legs and pray! :Oh crap

Ben -with due respect - I did correct my self on page 1

She was a swing voter on many important cases.

This is going to be a liberal vs. conservative war to replace her.

You think someone from Finland should know who the first woman to be on the US Supreme Court is?

oh FUCK - That was NOT one of the SC judges we wanted Bush to replace. We are headed into a very dark era in this country.

i'm looking at the opinions of the Chief Justices in the last major battle the Free Speech Coalition had in the supreme court. that was over 'virtual CP'. Ashcroft wanted to be able to go after porn that 'appeared to be' cp. Sirkin (same guy who is fighting 2257 for us) argued in the supreme court and won. here are the Justice's opinions

in other words:

Kennedy, J.,
Stevens,
Souter,
Ginsburg,
Breyer, JJ.,
Thomas, J

all agreed it was bullshit.


o'conner agreed in part, but disagreed in other parts
renqhuist and scalia disagreed also

so it's not all cut and dry as to whom will start really making decisions that fuck this industry all up.

although it's not clear how Gonzales actually feels about the 2257 regulations. i know he has a major hardon for obscenity. but 2257 is not about obscenity. he inherited those from ashcroft, and he also inherited the draped statue. he seems a bit more competent which could either be very good or very bad for this industry.

2257-Ben,
We could have voted this clown out of office in November and then the Dems who bent over for the Administration on the Constitutional Option would have been a moot issue.

When this exact issue was discussed on this board prior to the elections last year, Republican adult webmasters pooh poohed the issue and said it didnt matter. I am sure these same webmasters will say the same things right up to when the Court decisions start coming down 6-3 in favor of anti-porn. Then all of sudden they will wonder what happened to their rights.

well let's hope that america finally wakes up next year when it's time to vote for new senators. at least that could tip the scale in a more rational direction in the legislative branch.

Like the rest of the world gives a flying fuck about who are the supreme court judges ...

It's not just this industry that is in trouble. This could open up a whole can of worms: abortion, oregon's assisted suicide, medical marijuana, etc...

Does it pain you to be so retarded?

Maybe you should spend some time ACTUALLY reading court's rulings in say the last 20 years....

agreed - its a super shame that the Dems didn't have a stronger offering, unfortunately I suspect that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, hopefully the cycle can get broken sooner rather than later

agreed. although i think we're starting to see both senators and congressmen pulling away from the bush regime, as Joe Walmart is just NOW starting to see how incompetent and corrupt the administration is. they want to be reelected next year.

i think america can be given a pass on the 2000 election. first, because it was decided on such a technicality that it didn't really reflect the opinion of the nation. but there is NO excuse for reelecting these clowns in 2004. when you speak with bush supporters, their reasons for voting are so petty, so superficial and so steeped in hubris, ignorance and jingoism that it actually hurts my brain. america was unattached from reality on such an unprecedented scale, that I think americans have done irreperable harm to the nation, and yes, it could absolutely lead to a decline in american economic, political and military hegemony in the world.

america is getting exactly what it wanted. no more, no less.

Oh lord, WTF are you talking about -- all the abortion cases that hit the SC in the 80's, 90's, and 00's?

HAHAHAHAHa

This is too funny

Gonzalez is not a conservative - but he is Bush's butt buddy from Texas

So he'll probably rule "moderately" like O'connor... but he'll definately give the bush family anything it wants when it comes to Patriot act, police state powers, voter reform, immigration reform, world trade deals, etc

Don't worry about your porn being outlawed - Gonzalez looks like a fucking pedophile

He's got mexican PEDO-FACE

yes, bush is losing his approval from all sides, fast. but i am america & i didnt want this :(

i just saw this on the news. i am not pleased. :disgust

I don't think that Gonzalez is as likely because he just got into the AG position - but who knows it could happen

You should . . . oh, that's right, you are not a webmaster . . . no matter, you should still care if you are an American citizen.

This is fucking ugly.


I am seriously considering movin to a nice Dutch island!

anyone know what type of congress majority is required for the confirmation vote?

A report I heard earlier said the Oregon law is the first thing on their next session.

Simple majority... and the Republicans have it if they all (give or take 3) agree on a nominee.

how does this process work?

- next session starts in September I believe - they start listening to cases

- if the replacement is confirmed before then - no problem things go forward

- what happens if the replacement battle takes months and isn't confirmed till November for example - then what happens they have to start from scratch and listen to the cases being heard again?

The Bush White House has held secret meetings on possible replacements and senior officials have interviewed some candidates.

On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates "who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."

what a crock of shit

During the re-election campaign he said he would nominate judges along the lines of Scalia and Thomas.

those of us that held her as one of our heros as a child...that's who

She will stay on until a replacement is confirmed. I would think they would also let her finish any cases that are past the evidentiary stage and are being deliberated.

but during HIS childhood she resigned, so he doesnt give a shit...

thx for the info

It is going to get even more nasty than it was.

this should turn into a major knock down dragout type of fight. You know GW is going to nominate a reactionary conservative and the dems in the senate are going to have a fit. This may actually help the democrats if they use this fight to show the country what they stand for.

One by one they go :Oh crap

thats my hope as well - if the Dems are cool about it and don't act like idiots - in the end it could really backfire on the Republicans and turn into a massive shift back to the Dems

Trust me, you do not want a liberal Supreme Court. Liberal judges are the ones that do not follow the letter of the law. They want to make names for themselves. They like to interpret laws differently than they were intended.

Liberal judges are not a good thing, make no mistake about it.

This is what I'm talking about. From the Associated Press.
Reading is the pathway to knowledge. You might want to catch up. :winkwink:

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.

I think GW may hedge his bets and save the extreme right-wing judge for the next nomination he is almost certain to get to make. Gonzales would actually be a smart nomination politically since he leans enough to the right on most issues but they can call the abortion issue "compromise". This will be backed up by right-wing right-to-life groups bitching about the nominee. Then again once on the bench Gonzales could go to the other side on the abortion issue and with other Bush nominees be a 100% knockout for the Bush administration.

One thing I've already seen some talking heads talk about on tv is that voters knew when they cast their ballots last November that whoever they elected would likely get to nominate for the supreme court. (lol, okay sure)

In other words, whoever Bush nominates, the majority of Americans already approve of, lmao. It's brilliant really. If only they would use their powers for good ;)

I dont think we want a "liberal" or "conservative" court system. It's a seperate branch and party politics *shouldnt* play into it..
We want a court that will deliberate fairly on disputed issues. Pretty simple. Best way to do that is nominate someone down the middle.

Here is an interesting read on most likely candiates:

http://slate.com/id/2121270/?GT1=6666

Obviously you have never held an elected position. Of course any elected official is going to presume that the masses are behind them, otherwise they would not have been elected.

And yeah, anyone that did not know that someone from the SC would die or retire in this term was uninformed.

This is precisely why conservative is better than liberal.

The thing that scares me the most is during Bush's speech he says he will be "deliberate and thorough" in his choice, and he can not keep from smiling when he says those words.

I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

lol.

he does have that 'look what I can do!' attitude at times. like a little kid showing off.

Now all he has to do is declare a state of emergency and he could be in power indefinitely, non?

I saw that as well - they already know full well who they plan on submitting for nomination - now they are going to work on strategy to get whom ever it is through as quickly as possible

were in trouble now, lets just hope the democrats can stop some ultra conseravtive from getting in there. This could be really bad news for our industry