# Who will Bush nominate to succeed Justice O'Connor? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049 "2005-07-04T20:22:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/81 "2005-07-06T20:18:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, nor did I. But after all these years and general (though not universal) gaining of public acceptance it has \*become \* settled law. Fascinating that I missed your show of respect for this principle whenever _Bowers v. Hardwick_ was discussed. Perhaps you could point me to a thread or two where you opined that _Lawrence v. Texas_ was wrongly decided because of its lack of respect for _stare decisis_. I honestly don’t recall a single such utterance. In fact, I seem to recall that you WANTED _Bowers_ overturned. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/82 "2005-07-06T20:26:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Elvis** : You are consistently ignoring the points about _Plessy_. Why did _stare decisis_ not apply to _Plessy_? Are you ever going to read what you’re told? I already said stare has to be considered as a factor, and with respect. It can be overcome by a damn good argument. That was in response to your false statement that I said it’s decisive. Having been given your clarification, you continue to wave the strawman. If you’re not going to discuss this in good faith, you can discuss it by yourself. You too, **Bricker**. ---
**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 6, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/83 "2005-07-06T20:30:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Are you ever going to read what you’re told? I already said stare has to be considered as a factor, and with respect. It can be overcome by a damn good argument. OK. Let’s go from there. If 5 justices come to the conclusion that a fetus showing brain activity has a right to life, is that not a “damn good argument”? I’m not asking you to agree with the argument, just accept that the justices should consider it reason to ignore _stare decisis_. Shouldn’t issues affecting life and death be important enough? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2005, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/84 "2005-07-06T20:36:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Let’s assum for the sake of argument that Roe was not judicial activism. If the court got rid of it in the future, would you consider that to be “judicial activism”? Depends on the arguments and reasons for getting rid of it in the future. A decision based on new medical knowledge and refined fetal development research is far different than a decision based on “I think it’s bad because the Bible says so.” ---
**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 6, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/85 "2005-07-06T21:11:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Depends on the arguments and reasons for getting rid of it in the future. A decision based on new medical knowledge and refined fetal development research is far different than a decision based on “I think it’s bad because the Bible says so.” I gave two arguments (brief though they were). What about those? BTW, the first reason is not “because the Bible says so”. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/86 "2005-07-07T00:04:48Z")
Two questions: 1. What is _stare decisis_, for us non-lawyerly types? 2. When did the OP become “Is Roe v Wade valid? Will/should it be overturned by the new balance of the court?” instead of “Who will Bush nominate…?” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/87 "2005-07-07T00:36:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I gave two arguments (brief though they were). What about those? Like I said, it depends on what the basis for those findings are. A statement like “a right to life for an unborn child” has to be based in _some_ kind of scientific/nonpartisan/unopinionated definition of what “life” is, for instance. ---
**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 7, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/88 "2005-07-07T00:44:19Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > 1. What is _stare decisis_, for us non-lawyerly types? See the link “answer” in my post #76. Literally: “to stand by things decided”. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/89 "2005-07-07T01:00:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Let’s assum for the sake of argument that Roe was not judicial activism. If the court got rid of it in the future, would you consider that to be “judicial activism”? Let’s say the court found, in the living breathing consitution, a right to life for an unborn child? > > Or, what if the court decided to further restrict Roe to be applicable only to a fetus that did not show brain wave activity. I’m not sure what week of pregnancy that would be, but just for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s 11 weeks (ie, just shy of 3 months). Would that be “judicial activism”? I’m not really sure why this would be a problem, jurisprudentially, politically or morally. If we took brain activity as the threshold (rather more specific than independent viability, which turns on a concatenation of processes) we would at least have a bright line, susceptible of analysis in each specific case . Would it be so bad to say to women: “Yes, you may choose to abort. And your period of unfettered choice is over after eleven weeks. After that, we will measure YOUR particular fetus for brain waves. That test may or may not impact you freedom to choose. Make up your mind, bitch.” ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/90 "2005-07-07T01:07:33Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > 1. When did the OP become “Is Roe v Wade valid? Will/should it be overturned by the new balance of the court?” instead of “Who will Bush nominate…?” I thought those were the same question… ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/91 "2005-07-07T01:31:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Or, what if the court decided to further restrict Roe to be applicable only to a fetus that did not show brain wave activity. I’m not sure what week of pregnancy that would be, but just for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s 11 weeks (ie, just shy of 3 months). Would that be “judicial activism”? Yes becuase there is no legal justification for drawing the line at brain wave activity. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/92 "2005-07-07T01:45:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > See the link “answer” in my post #76. Literally: “to stand by things decided”. Thanks. So it means, in essence, to maintain the status quo? ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/93 "2005-07-07T01:49:33Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > Thanks. So it means, in essence, to maintain the status quo? We have many here who are more qualified than me to answer this, but… It means more than that. In the context of this discussion, it means: give deference to previous court decisions unless you have a very good reason not to. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/94 "2005-07-07T01:58:12Z")
Gonzalez. GeeDubya tipped his hand. His defense of Gonzales from extremists “on both sides” raises his profile (as well as offering GeeDubya an opportunity to point out his own splendid character as evinced by his loyalty.) Look for a premptive strike on Gonzales’ “torture” opinion critics, scorning those who would deny Gonzales his place because he isn’t nice enough to terrorists, and loves America too much. "George, I’m a Supreme Court Justice, please stop calling me “Speedy” " ---
**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 7, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/95 "2005-07-07T02:10:35Z")
Headline: Torturous Confirmation Hearings Envisioned for Gonzales. It’s “s” not “z” at the end, _amigo_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/96 "2005-07-07T13:22:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > GeeDubya tipped his hand. His defense of Gonzales from extremists “on both sides” raises his profile. Maybe not. We also know how much Dubya values personal loyalty, above perhaps anything else. In the same comment he mentioned how Gonzales is a friend and he doesn’t like attacks on his friends. That could well be the full extent of his meaning. > [@John Mace](#): > > If 5 justices come to the conclusion that a fetus showing brain activity has a right to life, is that not a “damn good argument” No, it would still be simply an assertion of faith, like any other start-of-life definition. They wouldn’t be coming to a \*conclusion \*, as you say, because that term implies the presence of some reasoning behind it, reasoning that in this case would have to be good enough to overcome stare decisis. And that reasoning would be, well, what? ---
**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 7, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/97 "2005-07-07T13:45:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > MNo, it would still be simply an assertion of faith, like any other start-of-life definition. So, if any definition of when life begins is “an assertion of faith”, what makes the present one any better… any less arbitrary? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/98 "2005-07-07T14:08:31Z")
Some reporting I heard on NPR indicates that the religious right has no real problem with Gonzalez, other than the fact that they aren’t REALLY REALLY sure of his position on abortion. They’re worried that he’ll turn out to have opinions of his own. Sounds like they won’t be satisfied unless they get the equivalent of a Catholic bishop in the Court. (Y’know, like Scalia.) They like to point out that 7 or the 9 justices on the court were picked by Republican Presidents and yet they still can’t get Roe overturned, “God” to be acknowledged in all classroom under penalty of catapult, or their own wives to go down on them. Man, they don’t call ‘em tighty-righties for nothin’. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/99 "2005-07-07T14:36:12Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > …or their own wives to go down on them… Its right there in the Scripture, St. Paul’s Letter to the Carpathians: _…Therefore, slobber thou not the knob, nor tongue thou the groove, lest thou be pleasured unwholesome, and distracted from suffering…_ Ah, if only he had taken that left turn at Albequerque, and gotten nowhere near the road to Damascus, perhaps he wouldn’t have reigned as Pope Killjoy the First. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049/100 "2005-07-07T16:47:15Z")
But seriously, folks: Gonzales. From our friends at The Carpetbagger Report [http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/](http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/) (Warning! Liberal blogger! Tighty righties advised: shields up!) > [@](#): > > …As soon as speculation picked up about a pending high court vacancy, Gonzales started making the rounds of conservative groups in DC. > > - The Heritage Foundation hosted a discussion on the Patriot Act, and there was Gonzales, reminding the powerhouse think tank that he shares the group’s priorities. > > - Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform hosted a luncheon for dominant conservative leaders, and there was Gonzales, expressing his “gratitude to people in the conservative movement.” In fact, it was Gonzales’ office that initiated the invitation to the meeting. > > - Laura Ingraham’s right-wing radio talk show reaches a broad conservative audience, and there was Gonzales, appearing on the program recently. > > - Conservative Bush loyalists use the war in Iraq as a litmus test of sorts, and there was Gonzales, visiting troops in Iraq for the Fourth of July… Waddles? Check. Feathers? Check. Waterproof asshole? Check. Floats? Check. Probability of duckitude? 95% [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-bush-nominate-to-succeed-justice-oconnor/311049.md?page=6)