Sandra Day O’Connor is retiring

July 1, 2005

We’ve been waiting for a Supreme Court retirement, but it turns out, we were watching the wrong justice.

Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman Supreme Court justice and a decisive swing vote for a quarter-century on virtually all the major legal issues of our time, announced her resignation today.

Because she is a moderate, her departure gives President Bush a major opportunity to alter the direction of the court if he so chooses.

O’Connor’s possible resignation has been rumored for months, although many thought Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has been ailing with cancer, would go first.

When the conventional wisdom believed that Rehnquist would retire, the opportunity for a major shift in the court’s direction was minimal. Rehnquist is a conservative, Bush would replace him with a younger conservative, and the balance of the high court would remain largely the same.

O’Connor, however, is the definitive moderate swing vote on the Supreme Court. The overwhelming number of 5-4 decisions has generally been directed by her willingness to go with one side or the other.

The political fight over a Supreme Court vacancy was going to be a massive, expensive, and ugly fight when Rehnquist was the subject of speculation, but with O’Connor stepping down, that same fight will be intensified significantly.

Stay tuned.

Update: Here’s the text of O’Connor’s retirement letter.

Two words: Oh no.

  • Good Grief! I never saw it coming so soon.
    The interesting part of Sandy’s departure is that it may put pressure on the preznet to appoint a woman or some other minority. In some ways I’m open to that line of thinking because you would (most probably) not get someone who is so radically to the right. I know…there are women and minority right-wing kooks out there…but the pool isn’t as deep. And most likely W won’t go that way anyway.
    Prepare for Culture Wars Episode II, Attack of the Clowns.

  • When you posted on the possibility of a battle to replace Rehnquist, I said bring it on. I repeat here what I said on June 21, as it applies even more now with O’Connor’s resignation:

    “I say bring it on. Bush has been nothing but a bully since he came to office, although he hid it in pithy but effective utterances, such as ‘I’m a uniter, not a divider,’ and ‘I’ll bring back honor and integrity to the White House.’ He killed both of those birds last Tuesday [June 14] when he blasted the Democrats for his political failures (imagine!) at a fundraiser with the biggest female porn star sitting there after her personal invite came from Bush and Rove (imagine again!!). As far as ‘in-your-face’ tactics, just look at the Boton nomination and, more importantly, Bush’s re-nomination of 7 judges already rejected by the Senate through filibusters. EXPECT Bush to do it here, too.

    “There will be a show-down in the Senate over the filibuster and the nuclear option. IF Bush chooses an extreme right-wing candidate — and Gonzales falls into that category — s/he should be successfully filibustered as the Gang of 14 will vote against the nuclear option. Why? Because Bush will have failed to consult with the Senate during the nomination process — an implicit expectation and promise made to the 7 Dems who signed on to the compromise agreement — and that failure WILL be deemed by the Gang of 14 to constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” Of course, that presupposes that the 7 Rethugs (and even some of the Dems) retain their integrity and move to support ALL of the terms of that compromise agreement and therefore vote against cloture.

    “Finally, a divisive candidate and the ensuing bloody battle can do nothing but further erode Bush’s — and by extension and/or association, the Rethug’s — support amongst the American populace. That spells bad news, since the battle is one that will be on a national media stage to a far greater and continuing extent than any appeallate judge battle to date, and America will notice this extremism just as it did with Schiavo. George and his political thugs can win a lot of battles conducted in the shadows and out of the public arena; he has shown that he has a political tin ear, though, when he tries the same tactics in the full glare of the media spotlight.

    “I relish the coming battle, as either way the Rethugs will get burned by these hardball tactics. And, as anyone paying even scant attention to the polls — and I know that means EVERYONE here — the more the American people learn of the truly radical nature of Bush’s agenda, the more those same people reject that agenda. It should be grand political theater, at the very least, so bring it on!!!”

  • Could he nominate Brown or Owen?
    That would be quite some clusterf*ck move if he could.

  • Could he nominate Brown or Owen?

    You bet. In fact, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family recently argued that Brown and Owen would make “safe” choices because Dems already cleared the way for them to be confirmed to the federal bench. Something to watch out for.

  • “if he so chooses” – what a funny line.

    Does this reporter write for the Daily Show in his spare time?

  • OH MAN. The question is, will the Democrats stand up the way they did with Bolton?

    Here’s hoping so.

  • The question is, will the Democrats stand up the way they did with Bolton?

    They very well may, but will Dems get reasonable Republicans to join them? Bolton would have been confirmed were it not for Voinovich. Which Republican will step up on a Supreme Court nomination?

  • The only question is whether they go Big Casino, with a youngish, minority (and therefore un-filibusterable), hardliner, or play small ball, with someone like Ted Olson, a reliable party hack, who can be sold as The Voice of Reason and Experience (plus a 9/11 widower to boot) but not someone with thirty years potential service in front of them.

    Still, you can tell your grandchildren you had a ringside seat at the creation of the One-Party State.

  • I believe that Bush will nominate an uber-conservative. He/she will be confirmed after the nuclear option is used to prevent the filibuster. I also believe that as soon as the new justice is sworn in a southern state will pass a law that effectively ends Roe. That law will be heard by the Supreme Court before the ’06 election.

    If Roe is overturned, it will be the their downfall. The problem w/ the abortion issue for the conservatives is, that as long is Roe exists the Republicans have a wedge issue that rallies the faithful but does not effect the independant voter. If Roe is overturned it will start to effect people. Those that are effected will get pissed.

  • I liked the Brad Plummer scenario:

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/07/oconnor_retires.html

    As far as Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement goes, along with the all-consuming question of “Who will replace her?,” I’m afraid David Sirota has this exactly right. Some lunatic winger will get nominated — maybe even Jance Rogers Brown — the Democrats in the Senate will say, “Oh hell no” and launch a filibuster. So the battle will rage on for a while, Bush’s “base” will get riled up and motivated to send in lots and lots of money, conservative judicial activists will blast their opponents with fairly superior firepower, and bobbing heads in the media will start carping on those “obstructionist” Democrats (bonus carping here if the nominee is a woman, minority, and/or Catholic). Finally Bush will give a very somber speech about withdrawing his nominee, announce that he’s very disappointed in the Senate, toss in a few bonus 9/11 references, and nominate some slightly-less-lunatic ultraconservative instead. The new nominee gets treated as the “compromise” candidate, is lauded far and wide as a moderate, and finally gets confirmed after pressure on the Senate Dems to “act like grown-ups” by television pundits who can afford to get their abortions abroad and will have no problem with a Supreme Court hostile to labor and environmental protections.

    One would hope not, of course, but is there anyone who finds this scenario wildly implausible?

  • One would hope not, of course, but is there anyone who finds this scenario wildly implausible?

    Yes, me. This line in particular: “Finally Bush will give a very somber speech about withdrawing his nominee, announce that he’s very disappointed in the Senate”

    When has Bush ever backed down or withdrawn anything. The more likely scenario would be that the candidate would withdraw “to spend more time with my family and stop our great nation from tearing itself apart.” Bush would then do everything else you said–especially demagoguing 9/11.

  • I suspect Gonzolas will get O’Connor’s spot, and they will save the arch conservative to replace Renquist.

  • Lance,

    I think you’re right; move the so-called Hispanic Bush lickspittle into position now (the Senate already approved him for AG). I’d add one more trick if I were Bush/Rove/Cheney/Lucifer. Move Scalia (or Thomas) into Rehnquist’s Chief Justice slot and then appoint a real nutcase (not that those two aren’t) to fill the vacant Justice slot.

    That, coupled with Repugs’ ownership of the House and Senate and the White House and all the Courts and the vocal churches and all the media (except a few good blogs and some professorships and some artists) should have the effect of making America thoroughly hate government altogether.

    At that point we’ll have a fusion of populism and libertarianism, and the old dinosaurs – the Major Parties – will be no more relevant to people’s lives than student government was in high school (or much of government is in Europe). The world will have shifted from a system of war-mongering nation-states to a set of competing international corporations. And it actually might work out for the best (but that’s a different, and much later, post).

    • Comments are closed.