Okay, it’s a fact that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wanted to retire under a Republican president; she has said as much. One can read this into her finding Bush as president when the Supreme Court voted for Florida’s electors in the 2000 election, or not—it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis, but it’s also not what I want to talk about.
One thing I’ve noticed is that O’Connor’s votes have been rather centrist. She’s often cited as the “swing justice,” and seems to swing to the left more often than to the right. With the Bush administration governing considerably to the right, it seems to me that O’Connor isn’t the conservative she used to be. She’s declared that sexual harassment and stereotyping are illegal forms of gender stereotyping, and while she’s not really a friend to abortion rights advocates, she stood up to defend Roe vs. Wade.
O’Connor’s a moderate with a conservative streak—which is just what Bush campaigned as. However, O’Connor has shown no indication that she’s going to retire. She’s 73 now, which is still younger than Justice Rehnquist, but not by much. If she wanted to retire under a Republican president, now’s her chance.
So, why isn’t she? One could argue that she’s holding off on retirement because the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice before the 2004 election could potentially sink Bush, and that she expects him to get another term so she can retire after the election and let Bush replace her in 2005. However, considering that she’s not really the kind of justice that a rightist administration like Bush’s dreams about, could it be that she’s holding off on retirement in hopes that Bush loses next year, and a more moderate president replaces her? Could it be that Justice O’Connor has had a change of heart?
I don’t know, but I suspect that O’Connor just might be terribly disappointed in what she’s seen in President Bush, who has turned out to be nothing like the moderate he campaigned as. I don’t have any statements of hers that would indicate this, apart from what her voting record looks like. Could I be right about this? Or is her continued employment a political favor to Bush? Or is she just too much of a macher to call it quits?
We can only guess, but you may be right about any or all of those reasons. It could also be that she wants to build up a positive legacy that future historians could balance against the insupportable but unignorable Bush decision that she may now regret (“our consideration is limited to the present circumstances”). If she or any other justice were to create a new opening before Bush has a chance to be elected legitimately, there’s no political upside but only a huge downside, and she, like the others, may know it.
Another concern for her might be the PATRIOT Act. O’Connonr has sided with the rights of defendants in several critical cases, so it may be that she views a President who would support PATRIOT as rather dangerous in the long-term perspective. Cases involving the limits of power for the FBI are back as a major concern now, as opposed to only a minor sideline before 9/11, so O’Connor may be giving those issues more weight now than she used to.
I suspect she simply finds her job rewarding and fulfilling, and will do it as long as she is able, like most of the justices, who are all advanced in age. They are among the most powerful people in the world, after all. I don’t see much reason to attach great conspiracy theories to when they resign. It is a wonderful job that they have worked to attain for most of their professional lives. This is the longest unchanged court in quite a long time; the justices on it work well together (which does not mean they agree all the time) and, regardless of whether you agree with all their decisions or not (and I know the people on this board don’t), it has, by and large, been a responsible and thoughtful Court. O’Conner, like all the justices, will remain in place as long as she can, and will resign only when she feels she really must.
I’d be astonished if it had crossed her mind more than momentarily to retire at such a young age, unless she has health problems of which I’m ignorant. She’s probably good for another 20 years.
OConnor was diagnosed with breast cancer as far back as 1988.
I also remember election coverage of O’Connor that said she was annoyed when it looked like Gore had won, because she would have to delay her retirement. More recent judiciary-appointment dustups have shown, though, that even if a Republican was in the oval office, any judge he tries to appoint, at any level, is going to face severe challenge simply because Congress is so nearly equally divided. O’Connor may be hoping that the elections of 2004 retain Bush, and increase the paper-thin Republican majority in Congress to something that will allow the President to appoint a moderate-conservative (as opposed to a moderate-moderate) Justice.
An addendum that occured to me only after I hit SUBMIT:
If O’Conner retires now and Bush tries to appoint a replacement, whoever he chooses could be used as ammunition against him in November 2004. Considering the circumstances of the last election, Bush can’t afford to take any chances. O’Connor may have decided to wait and see if Bush can win a second term, at which time he’ll have nothing to lose and can delve into a serious appointment argument with Congress.
Considering that O’Connor is one of the most powerful people in the US it’s not hard to see why she might want to stick on. You could even make the case that she is the most powerful person in the US; unlike Bush she doesn’t have to worry about re-election prospects, Congress and large bureaucracies with their own agenda.
Not to menion the prospect of making history and becoming the first female Chief Justice.
Poppycock. There are all sorts of things that might give some indication that she was uneasy with W. Gossip columns repeating rumours, lines from commencement sppeches, that sort of thing. Proof, no? Evidence, yes. Certainly she could have ducked the question more than she did in Walloon’s article.
Have you guys been playing around in Limbaugh’s drug cabinet? With few exceptions, Bush’s judicial appointees have been routinely approved, with little or no opposition. Here’s a list from the Department of Justice, though it does not include the many nominees who were approved prior to the 108th Congress.
Good lord, a tiny handful (three, to be precise) of ultra-conservative nominees get derailed in the Senate, and suddenly “any judge [Bush] tries to appoint” is doomed? Feh.
I can’t speak for emarkp, but I don’t think you read or understood all of my comments. I added:
Getting a perfectly moderate judge appointed is relatively easy, but I doubt that’s what the backers of the Republican party (or the Democratic party for the matter) want from a President. Rather, I expect they want judges that reflect the political bias of their particular party and will influence the courts in that direction. If, for example, Bush wanted SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade or fulfill other ultraconservative dreams, the kinds of right-wing justices he’d have to appoint have almost no chance whatsoever of being approved by the current Congress. It would surprise me mightily if this hadn’t occured to O’Connor. If she prefers the courts become even moderately more conservative after she retires (or at least hold the line), she should wait until after 2004 to see if Bush can be re-elected and if Congress can become more Republican. It’s a risk, of course. A democract might be elected and O’Connor will have to hold on for at least another four years. C’est la vie.
I make no claim, and I’m not taking a “shot.” The OP hypothesized that SDO was unhappy with the administration, and Walloon asked if there was any evidence for it. You dismissed his question, and said that he had demanded a cite. I dismissed your dismissal.
As you yourself said, we can “infer” someone’s thoughts from their words. If SDO had in fact uttered words that tended to imply dissatisfaction (faint praise, etc), it would imply that the OP’s hypothesis was correct. If such does not exist, it doesn’t prove she is in fact entirely pleased with GWB; but it does move the question from the category of “informed conjecture” and into “sheer speculation.” A worthwhile distinction, IMO.
Completely abandoning the analytical framework of Roe is standing up to defend it?
I’m no friend of the abortionists, but least Roe’s trimester framework was clear and understandable, unlike the wishy-washy “undue burden” standard she replaced it with, complete with an unworkable circular definition of the term. That one goes down with “we won’t need to discriminate on the basis of race 25 years from now” as O’Connors legacy of replacing sensible bright-line rules with muddled jargon, buzzwords, and arbitrary, nonsense dicta.
Worst. Justice. Ever.
At least Stevens and Breyer are consistent in the way they treat the Constitution as a wishing-well for any well-meaning leftie cause-head who happens to walk by with an agenda.
