More O'Connor : By The Political Heretic

Political Heretic

Okay. It's 10:28 pm on a Saturday night and I'm posting a link on retiring Justice O'Connor?

Here's the money quote:

"Most of what we have been hearing about potential nominees is about their "judicial philosophy" or their "theory of the Constitution." During last year's presidential campaign debates, Bush said, "I would pick people that would be strict constructionists."
And now, in anticipation not of O'Connor's retirement but of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's departure, activist groups on the left and the right have raised millions of dollars to promote or fight against nominees depending on their judicial philosophies. We're asked to support Janice Rogers Brown because she is dedicated to "preserving the Constitution as ratified," Michael McConnell because of his theory of the establishment clause, Emilio Garza or Edith Jones because they are constitutional originalists, Alberto Gonzales because of his position on substantive due process and abortion rights.
But these positions and writings reveal just one part of what the president should know to make his next decision. Character and range of human experience should also matter. Does the nominee have truly practical wisdom -- an on-the-muddy-ground understanding of the sheer diversity of human aspiration, emotion, frailty, and passion? Does the nominee have a sense of justice to prevail where simple theory proves inadequate? O'Connor did, and a court without members of these qualities does not bode well for our future."

By the way, the news coverage from The Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (editorial), here (editorial), and here (op-ed). (Swanktrendz could only provide a couple of links, so refer back to Political Heretics weblog for entire articles.)

The New York Times has some news analysis concerning the upcoming battle and O'Connor here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (Kennedy) and here (editorial).

The Washington Times' coverage can be found here, here, here, here, and here (editorial).

Thirty-two links in all. Probably too much and redundant but oh well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200062.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200971.html

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/02/opinion/02sat1.html&OP=7e3ac6afQ2FELQ25CEt0rpq00Q5CWEWPPQ5BEPuEPWE0Y@Q5D@0Q5DEPWpNQ5Co)yQ5Cdj

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050701-085016-4603r.htm