home

Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:37:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

via The New York Times:

But retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quickly weighed in on the president's nomination for her replacement, calling Judge Roberts "good in every way, except he's not a woman." Justice O'Connor made the comments in an interview on Tuesday after a fly-fishing trip with the outdoor editor of The Spokane Spokesman-Review, where she was also quoted as saying that she was almost sure Mr. Bush would not appoint a woman to replace William H. Rehnquist because she did not think he would want a woman as chief justice.

"So that almost assures that there won't be a woman appointed to the court at this time," Justice O'Connor said.

The article also has details about the interview process Bush went through. 4th Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkenson said he wasn't asked his opinion about Roe v. Wade or any other issue:

Judge Wilkinson said he was not asked about his views on issues like abortion or even a particular legal case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in interviews with others on the White House staff; he would not say if he had talked to Vice President Dick Cheney. "I wasn't crowded in any way," Judge Wilkinson said. "There was no litmus test applied." Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing on Wednesday that neither Mr. Bush nor White House staff members asked any of the finalists about their positions on issues.

The White House isn't saying who else was interviewed by the President, but sources say at least one woman was in the mix. Speculation is that Edith Jones and Edith Clement were interviewed.

< Iran Executes Two Gay Teenagers | Scoring Scotus >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    Well, if Bush vetted this nominee as well as he vetted Bernie Kerik who knows what we will find out in the coming weeks.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    Never let it be said that Sandy isn't independent-minded. I doubt she gives a rat's ass what the right wing nutcases think.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    I respect all of her comments relative to this issue, thanks for posting this.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    Say Bush nominates a woman when Rehnquist retires, if Rehnquist then comments that the nominee's "good in every way, except she's not a man," will there be outrage? Troll question, for sure, but this bugs me. I could care less of the gender/race/creed of our judges, isn't that the way it should be, especially to a member of SCOTUS?

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#5)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    You could care less or you couldn't care less? Honestly, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the first woman Supreme Court justice to be a little disappointed that of the nine people who preside over the third branch of government, only one is a woman. She was appointed almost 25 years ago, and, there has been virtually no progress in nominating more women to the Court. In fact, 25 years later, it actually goes backwards in terms of progress. This is a woman, remember, who graduated in the top 10% of her class at Stanford Law School, and yet, was only offered legal secretary jobs. And it is ridiculous to assume that Roberts is "the most qualified." There is no such thing. Bush had a number of exceptionally qualified people to choose from, including women, and he picked another white guy. He sounds like he is exceptionally qualified, but it's not like he was, objectively, the "most qualified." I must admit that I have was a little surprised, pleasantly so, by Justice O'Connor's candor.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    Couldn't care less. All good points but I still can't shake the thought that the gender/race/creed of a SCOTUS member should be irrelevant, especially to another SCOTUS member. To me, the only thing relevant should be whether they are qualified to do the job.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#7)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown would make good additions, then. Are you looking fw to it?

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    If they are qualified. And whether they are qualified or not is to me completely unrelated to their gender/race/creed.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    SU: Women make up half this country and I think it appropriate that they make up half the SCOTUS. Is it safe to assume that there are not 4 women in the US that can match the qualifications of a Souter, Thomas, Stevens, Scalia, Rehnquist, Roberts? It seems to me that there are many capable female jurists out there and the supreme court is not reflective of society as a whole. I know I don't care for some of Rogers rulings and what he "lawyered" for, but for some reason I am not against this choice. Bush of course is going to pick a conservative so we have to live with that, and everything I hear about Rogers is consistent with thoughtful. That said, I am all in favor of a Supreme Court that is consistent with the gender makeup of our society, in fact I think it should be mandatory.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    "SU: Women make up half this country and I think it appropriate that they make up half the SCOTUS." I'm a little wary asking this question because I think we're getting OT, but... Jl, do you think it appropriate for the sake of appearances, or do you think women inherently interpret our Constitution differently than men?

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    Jl: How about making sure the SC makeup reflects the educational makeup of the country? A couple of them could have high school diplomas, and throw in a GED. How about the best person for the job regardless of race, sex, etc?

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    Funny how the New York Times only quoted some of Sandra Day O'Connor's comments. They conveniently left out this part. Her first words were unequivocal: "That's fabulous!" she said. She immediately described John G. Roberts as a "brilliant legal mind, a straight shooter, articulate, and he should not have trouble being confirmed by October. He's good in every way, except he's not a woman." Somehow I don't think Sandra is that disappointed with the choice

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman."
    Maybe these are code words for "He will swing the court into overturning Roe V. Wade".

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    SU: Because I think they are as qualified as the men appointed but do not get the appointments because our presidents and people tend to think of men as more sagacious and less "emotional". Not to be confrontational, but make an argument against it, tell me why there should not be a gender balance. I do not believe that there are not "enough" highly qualified female jurists in this country to balance out the SCOTUS along gender lines. Wile: The argument you pose is fit for a moron, but I guess monkey see monkey do, so here goes. Qualified does not include those with HS diplomas. Now if you were to make the argument that we should align the court along the ethnic demographics in this country i.e., 6% Asian, 11% African American, 16% Italian American etc, I would be hard pressed to make an argument that gender equality appointments would not lead to cries for ethnic based appointments. I also find it odd that you do not argue why qualified female jurists should not be appointed before the likes of a Souter or a Thomas. Are Souter and Thomas better than every woman jurist in the country? The most qualified relative to judges is highly subjective and laughable when I consider the likes of Thomas and Souter. There are at least a half dozen women that I can think of off the top of my head (conservative and liberal) that are far more capable than Thomas and Souter. Make an argument for me Wile that demonstrates and articulates what makes Thomas Souter and Rogers better than their female counterparts. I would be happy to provide a list if you are too ill-informed of the more than capable female jurists in this country.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    "SU: Because I think they are as qualified as the men appointed but do not get the appointments because our presidents and people tend to think of men as more sagacious and less "emotional"." So your answer, basically, is that since there is no difference between how a man or woman judge interprets the Constitution, you want a gender balance on SCOTUS for the sake of appearances. Fair enough. I don't happen to agree that it's neccessary, but now I understand your position. "Not to be confrontational, but make an argument against it, tell me why there should not be a gender balance." Not confrontational at all. I am not against a gender balance, in fact I couldn't care less if they were all women. Because I, like you, don't believe that there is a inherent difference in how the genders interpret our Constitution, and since I care very little about "appearances" and very much about results, I have no interest in a mandatory requirement that SCOTUS's gender makeup reflect that of our society.

    Re: Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    Fair enough SU, I am all about the yin and yang I guess......

    Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts | 16 comments (16 topical)