Sandra O'Connor Resigns - Democrats Will Find "Extraordinary Circumstances"

OK. Justice O’Connor has resigned.

I predict that the Democrats - specifically, the seven Democrats that signed the accord concerning judicial nominations - will find “extraordinary circumstances” in President Bush’s nominee, no matter who it is.

Alternatively, Bush might just pick someone in the mold of Ashcroft or Bolton who truly is an “Extraordinary Circumstance.”

Gored oxen and all that.

And I equally predict that the Democrats will need to do so because Republicans will not even give lip service to replacing O’Connor with a moderate and will nominate someone who is known to be completely objectionable to the Democrats.

Apparently, when Bush said that he was a “uniter and not a divider” he meant that Democrats should just roll over and do whatever he wants.

Of course, Bush could avert a standoff by nominating someone who wasn’t reprehensible. Don’t look for that to happen.

Nice preemptive strike there, Bricker! Nothing like a little cyanide to add a bit of tang to the well-water, eh? So, naturally, if GeeDubya nominates someone just to the left of Calvin Coolidge, the Dems will have abrogated their sworn obligation to bend over in the name of bi-partisanship?

He should appoint Alberto Gonzales, and the Dems should smile and confirm him.

How is it possible to debate this?

Well, part of the Gang of 14 deal was that “We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration." This won’t happen, so the deal is broken. Filibuster on.

Oh, sure. If Bush nominates a clone of Earl Warren, the Dems will find “extraordinary circumstances.” You know damn well Bush is gonna nominate some mossback who’s against the Bill of Rights just on general principles.


President Bush has no particular obligation to nominate a moderate, or to keep the Court’s current balance intact, does he?

I took the “extraordinary circumstances” line to mean that mere ideological differences would be insufficient to filibuster. Nomination of Ann Coulter would certainly give rise to EC. Nomination of Luttig or Garza - well-qualified jurists - is not “extraordinary circumstances.”

But I believe the Democrats will not keep that agreement - or, more accurately, they will find that “extraordinary circumstances” are met by ideological differences.

Meh. If they breach the agreement in this way, perhaps we’ll see the “nuclear option” back on the agenda.

Is there anything you’d ever admit was an “extraordinary circumstance?”

If Bush nominates Gonzales, then I think that’s about as moderate as we can expect, and that the Dems should confirm him (but not until they rough him up about the torture stuff for a while).

If Bush tries to nominate some real activist zealot like Ashcroft or Roy Moore, then I would argue that it is an extraordinary circumstance. I want to know that any prospective SC Justice will protect SOCAS and the Bill of Rights.

I also don’t think that “extraordinary circumstance” qualification is especially meaningful or binding anyway.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

I think he will consult with them. And I think the Dems will dump on whomever he suggests until he comes up with a flaming liberal.

I think you’re playing Calvinball with the agreement. Who says ideological differences can’t be extraordinary? How about a white supremacist ideology? Is that extraordinary?

I wasn’t going to post another comment, but this one was too much.

Do you libs have the vaguest freakin’ clue in the universe as to how statements like this make you as a collective group look like total morons? Silly me, of course you don’t. That’s why you keep making them.

And do you have the vaguest freakin’ clue in the universe as to how really, really tired moderates and conservatives are of reading the same brain-dead mantras being repeated all the time? Again, silly me, of course you don’t. That’s why you keep chanting them.

Surprise us all for once. Do some independant thinking instead of just regurgitating the I-Hate-Bush mantra of the day, will you?

Moderates hate Bush too. :stuck_out_tongue:

Was there any definition given of “extraordinary circumstances?” While I agree that Bush has no obligation to nominate a moderate, I’d say that a nominee who is at the farthest extreme in terms of right-wing politics would warrant the invocation of “extraordinary circumstances.” There are certainly many, many conservative nominees who are not objectionable – after all, hasn’t the Democratic minority only filibustered a tiny percentage of all Bush’s nominees thus far (most of whom were presumably conservative)?

The Democrats cannot, in good faith, break their word and filibuster someone just because he’s conservative. And I don’t think they will. But “extraordinary circumstances” could and should apply to someone with extraordinary ideologies, like Roy Moore, or Rick Santorum.


Not necessarily, unless this is meant to be one of those “No true Scotmen” statements.

I predict that Bricker will support whomever Bush nominates, unless that person has socially liberal views.

Bricker, I’m going to need a cite for the proposition that “extraordinary circumstances” doesn’t mean extraordinary idealogical opposition. That’s not how I understood it at the time, and I don’t believe that’s how it was reported. Indeed, as Dio notes, your position is absurd (in the technical, non-pejorative sense, of course). If you’re right, the rule would swallow the exception – in this context, what differences exist but idealogical differences?

No, extraordinary circumstances means the Democrats have limited themselves to not filibustering a nominee with whom they have significant differences. It has not limited them from filibustering a nominee who is another Van Devanter.

Oh, and my recollection is that the agreement did not apply to Supreme Court nominees, but I’m not real confident of that.


You see, though, that it’s not the “has socially liberal views” part that we conservatives don’t like. It’s that they feel they can legislate those views from the bench, and ignore the constitution while their at it.