# Sandra O'Connor Resigns - Democrats Will Find "Extraordinary Circumstances" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712 "2005-07-01T15:53:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/141 "2005-07-02T04:19:41Z")
Swell. What you got for us next? Plague of locusts? Head lice pandemic? C’mon, Mr. Sunshine, lay it on us. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/142 "2005-07-02T04:20:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I like making predictions ahead of time that prove right. Last fall I had a run of luck in this area. But this prediction is technically impossible to evaluate, due to your qualifier “no matter who they pick.” If Bush selects a divisive right-wing extremist, then yeah, the Dems will probably invoke their “extraordinary circumstance” clause, and rightly so. But then it’s not much of a prediction. Is that what you’re guessing will happen? Now, if your prediction is that Bush will nominate someone widely considered to be a middle-of-the-road conservative, and the Dems will filibuster anyway, now _that_ would be an interesting prediction – on both counts. -P ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/143 "2005-07-02T05:09:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well, that’s going to be a tough one. I’ll have to back at least a week. The SC decided that eminent domain has no definition beyond that which individual States might wish to legislate. This was addressed in the Constitution and gutted by the SC. > It was an unpopular decision that spanned both political parties and it was done by legislating from the bench. But then how is that an example of _liberals_ legislating from the bench (which was what was requested)? **Debaser** , you mentioned that you approved of the outcome of RvW (legalizing abortion) but not the process (decision made by federal govt as opposed to individual states) - if I’m incorrect in my summary, please correct me. Now, this position, in what little education I’ve had about politics, is a classically conservative one - it values state’s rights over federal; and that even if the outcome is the same (states all come to same conclusion/ federal govt reaches same conclusion), the former is preferable to the latter. Okay, that makes sense to me. Here’s what doesn’t: _The Bush administration has not followed this principle._ Example: Oregon’s assisted suicide law (law? not sure of terminology) From the [NY Times]([quis.qub.ac.uk/pugwash/](http://quis.qub.ac.uk/pugwash/) NYTimes%20-%20US%20Sup%20Ct%20to%20Hear%20Oregon%20Euthenasia%20Law.doc) (a .doc file): > [@](#): > > In the administration’s view, suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” under regulations that carry out the federal Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, the administration will argue before the Supreme Court, as it did unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts, that doctors who prescribe drugs for committing suicide violate the federal law and are subject to revocation of their federal prescription license. The license applies to broad categories of medications and is necessary, as a practical matter, for a doctor to remain in practice. > The Bush administration’s position, announced in November 2001 by John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, reversed the response to the Oregon law by Janet Reno, the attorney general in the Clinton administration. The article goes on to quote the administration’s appeal: > [@](#): > > The issue, the administration asserts, is “who gets to decide,” whether “the attorney general, pursuant to a uniform national standard, or each of the 50 states, according to 50 different views regarding the proper use of controlled substances.” Indeed! The Bush administration, it seems to me, is doing exactly what ‘liberals’ are supposedly doing: wanting to impose a universal standard from above, without regard to decisions made by a particular state. > [@](#): > > White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said that President Bush opposes Oregon’s law. “The president believes we must value life and protect the sanctity of life at all stages.” As far as the OP is concerned, I bring an example like this up because it muddies the liberal=activist judge=legislating from the bench v. conservative=constitutional=state’s rights, which are (duh) oversimplifications. How is the DoJ’s interference, in effect, any different from the decisions made by the supposedly activist judges? > [@then-Governor GW Bush](#): > > “The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue like you’re trying to get me into.” \*\*Governor Bush on gay marriage, Larry King Live February 15, 2000 I remain unconvinced that Bush has adhered to this principle. So, to those that argue that a Bush nominee would be a strict constitutionalist, and respect state’s rights, I say, huh? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/144 "2005-07-02T06:38:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I would second this. The term “unborn child” is pure demagoguery. The proper term is “[fetus](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetus)”. No. “Pure demagoguery” better describes your statement. One may argue at length as to whether abortion is ethical or proper or what should be the legal status of a child at what point before birth. However, the word “child” has been used to identify what you insist must be called a fetus for many hundreds of years. In fact, the earliest citation in what would become English for the word “unborn” occurs in an 897 phrase “unborenan bearn” and the phrase “unborenum cildum” is attested by 1000. The more easily recognized “child unborn” appeared in 1386, thirteen years prior to the first appearance of “fetus” in the 1398 sentence “_The chylde that is conceyued in the moder hyght Fetus in Latyn._” (The child that is conceived in the mother hight [is named] Fetus in Latin.) In other words, the first reference to the word fetus in the English language is defined as an “unborn child.” It would seem to me that denying the clear historical usage of one phrase to pretend that it is some sort of new construct invented to shape an argument, despite its clear 500 year precedence in the language is, itself, the epitome of demagoguery. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/145 "2005-07-02T06:45:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. “Pure demagoguery” better describes your statement. One may argue at length as to whether abortion is ethical or proper or what should be the legal status of a child at what point before birth. However, the word “child” has been used to identify what you insist must be called a fetus for many hundreds of years. In fact, the earliest citation in what would become English for the word “unborn” occurs in an 897 phrase “unborenan bearn” and the phrase “unborenum cildum” is attested by 1000. The more easily recognized “child unborn” appeared in 1386, thirteen years prior to the first appearance of “fetus” in the 1398 sentence “_The chylde that is conceyued in the moder hyght Fetus in Latyn._” (The child that is conceived in the mother hight [is named] Fetus in Latin.) In other words, the first reference to the word fetus in the English language is defined as an “unborn child.” > > It would seem to me that denying the clear historical usage of one phrase to pretend that it is some sort of new construct invented to shape an argument, despite its clear 500 year precedence in the language is, itself, the epitome of demagoguery. I stand corrected and humbly beg pardon for my ignorance. Thank you for the information. Bo ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/146 "2005-07-02T07:23:41Z")
No problem. I don’t care where you guys carry your arguments, but hands off the language. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/147 "2005-07-02T09:26:12Z")
Still, its just _such_ a shame that there are no qualified moderates for GeeDub to nominate. Why, such a nomination would fit perfectly with The Leader’s avowed purpose to “unite, not divide.” Given his oft-stated devotion to this laudable goal, one must assume that no such jurist is available. Darn the luck, huh? Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/148 "2005-07-02T09:29:53Z")
I think he meant “untie”, as in unravel the fabric of American liberty. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/149 "2005-07-02T09:35:33Z")
Dyslexics of the world, untie! But seriously folks, this just in by way of _Eschaton_ > [@](#): > > CNN just flashed up poll results regarding Roe. 65% want a justice who would uphold Roe. 47% of Republicans want a justice who would uphold Roe (verus 46% who want one who would overturn it). (Offered without link, pending confirmation by a source not associated with scurillous liberal blogitude…) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/150 "2005-07-02T10:01:31Z")
> [@aurelian](#): > > I remain unconvinced that Bush has adhered to this principle. So, to those that argue that a Bush nominee would be a strict constitutionalist, and respect state’s rights, I say, huh? Excellent point. I think the medical marijuana issue belongs at the state level. I’ve said it here many times before. However, the problem is that much of the states rights concept is already eroded. In tension with the approach of both states rights and strict constructionism was _Wickard v. Filburn_. While I believe the principles for which I am contending are the right direction, I don’t want a jurist to overturn decades of law immediately, either. _Stare decisis_ has some value. The medical marijuana decision was made in the 1940s, with wheat. If you take the contrary position, what other Commerce Clause legislation do you wipe away? And if you take it ONLY for marijuana, and keep the other Commerce Clause laws (because you like them) - what kind of principled jurist are you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/151 "2005-07-02T10:07:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Still, its just _such_ a shame that there are no qualified moderates for GeeDub to nominate. Why, such a nomination would fit perfectly with The Leader’s avowed purpose to “unite, not divide.” Given his oft-stated devotion to this laudable goal, one must assume that no such jurist is available. > > Darn the luck, huh? Huh? Fair comment. Sorta. When was the last time Mr. Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider? I think he’s dropped that claim now, and well he should: he’s not a uniter. So while he did at one time claim this, he no longer does… and your characterization of him as often claiming it is incomplete: he, at one time, often claimed it. Now, he doesn’t, and it’s no longer his position. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/152 "2005-07-02T10:11:50Z")
Rather a pity, don’t you think? Or don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/153 "2005-07-02T10:24:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Rather a pity, don’t you think? Or don’t you? Which one? That Bush has dropped his claim? No, not a pity at all… he clearly ISN’T a uniter. Or did you mean it’s a pity he’s not a uniter, as he predicted he’d be? Yes, it’s a great pity. Reagan was a uniter – he was disliked by the left, of course, but hugely popular in the country. Clinton was a uniter – again disliked by the right, but hugely popular with mainstream America. Naturally, I’d rather see a Reagan than a Clinton in office, but that’s because I want my particular political principles in play. If we were having this conversation in 1981, when Potter Stewart resigned, we might still disagree on the sort of justice that should be nominated to replace him, but we’d not disagree on Reagan’s inherent appeal and ability to unite people. (Or maybe we would - but if we did, you’d be wrong) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/154 "2005-07-02T14:11:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you take the contrary position, what other Commerce Clause legislation do you wipe away? And if you take it ONLY for marijuana, and keep the other Commerce Clause laws (because you like them) - what kind of principled jurist are you? I’m totally fine with unwinding _Wickard_. In fact, in light of recent events, it would probably have little effect. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161279,00.html; ]Fox article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/01court.html ]NY Times If Congress wants to force the states to enforce its safety, health, and welfare agenda, it can simply condition federal funding on the states’ compliance. While the Court has discussed a relatedness limitation on Congress’s power to provide for the general welfare through the spending power, few think the limitation has any teeth.[http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/82/82engstrom.pdf](http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/82/82engstrom.pdf) (pdf) (evaluating substantive limitations on regulation under the spending power: ); [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/110-7/smith%20final.pdf](http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/110-7/smith%20final.pdf) (pdf) (same); [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html#t558](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html#t558) (though the Court evaluates conditions on spending for relatedness to purpose of spending, the Court has never invalidated a condition on relatedne[claim](http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=39962) ss grounds). It seems that Congress would like to sit as a super-supreme court. It’s as if, as William Burroughs described, a man had learned to talk through his asshole. At some point, the asshole takes over and the mouth becomes obsolete. [http://www.kilbot.net/writing/asshole.php](http://www.kilbot.net/writing/asshole.php) (Contains naughty words and a recording of someone saying them). The question remains, which is which. > [@](#): > > Or did you mean it’s a pity he’s not a uniter, as he predicted he’d be? The pity is that he: 1. Felt the need to claim that he was a uniter when he pretty clearly knew that he wasn’t (which looks a lot like lying). 2. Lacked the moral scruples to avoid lying about it. It seems the truth is not his friend. 3. “Predicted.” Many took this to be a [pledge](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/02/BUSH.TMP), a [claim](http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=39962) or a [self-billing](http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050702/OPINION01/507020311/1015). Now that we are complaining that the promised feast was not delivered, it was only a prediction? When are you going to stop cleaning up his puke and admit that he’s got a problem? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/155 "2005-07-02T15:18:38Z")
He might yet fulfill his promise. With his approval rating plunging like an ill-equipped skydiver, he has already united a large section of the population in shared shock, horror, and dismay! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/156 "2005-07-02T15:38:11Z")
Gosh, **Bricker** , no one can forget St. Ronnie of Bakersfield! His bold military adventure in Grenada, crushing hordes of crack Cuban bulldozer drivers (Say, how is that Grenada monument coming along?..), just after his brilliant coup in Lebanon. Not too mention his tireless efforts to wrench wealth from the selfish grasp of the poor and place it happily again in the hands of the stewards assigned by Providence for its care! But when you refer to “principles”, no doubt you are referring to his creative reading of the “original intent” of the Founders, as captured in the text: “The President shall brush aside the carping objections of Congress as he bloody well pleases” Or is that one of those “penumbra” we’ve heard so much about? Yes, indeed, you’ve so much to be proud of there! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/157 "2005-07-02T16:41:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The medical marijuana decision was made in the 1940s, with wheat. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/158 "2005-07-02T17:24:23Z")
[Wickard](http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/443/) Is this not generally covered in Law School? ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/159 "2005-07-02T17:25:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 **Bricker** refers here to a 1940’s style US Supreme Court case with essentiallt the came facts, issue and holding as the recent marijuana case, except it involved the local growing and use of wheat. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/160 "2005-07-02T17:26:17Z")
Sigh. …essentially the same… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=9)