President Bush faces some interesting choices as he considers who should replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Assistant Professor of Communication Trevor Parry-Giles says that while Justice O'Connor's retirement was not unexpected, potentially it is "much more complicated politically for President Bush as he strives to name her replacement then had Chief Justice Rehnquist resigned."
Parry-Giles teaches and studies rhetoric and political culture and legal rhetoric, and has written a forthcoming book about the Supreme Court confirmation process.
He adds: "O'Connor is arguably the most important justice on the current Court, often functioning as a swing vote on significant cases. Frustrating for both conservatives and liberals, O'Connor was critical in the preservation of abortion-choice rights for women in several key cases. On assorted issues, over her long tenure on the Court, O'Connor personified the swing voter.
"With approval ratings hovering in the mid-40s, President Bush faces increasing confirmability pressures--a tough confirmation fight could cripple his presidency for much of this year and a failed confirmation would be a significant blow."
"Which of the imperatives he faces will rise to dominance is the interesting question: Will he appoint a strict constructionist/originalist who will anger Democrats and liberals? Will he look for a Hispanic nominee (perhaps A.G. Gonzales), and potentially anger his conservative base? Will he find a confirmable nominee, with no paper trail, who might prove to be a surprise? Will he look for a member of the Senate, who would almost be assured of an easy and quick confirmation? When the president names his nominee, it will become immediately apparent which imperative has prevailed."
Political Scientist Mark Graber says that Justice O'Connor's resignation "raises interesting questions about her political identification. If one reads many far-right wing sites, O'Connor was a liberal, barely distinguishable from Justice Ginsburg, if not Jesse Jackson. Yet, if the rumors of her comments when Gore was thought the victor of the 2000 election are correct, and there is some truth to claims that Justices try to time resignations, Justice O'Connor clearly preferred that Bush appoint her successor than Gore. Apparently, her efforts to push the court to the right on such matters as federalism were far more important to her than the occasional vote to overturn a particularly egregious death sentence and the privacy cases.
Graber'sresearch interests include the political history, theory and practice of judicial review, the economic prerequisites of civil liberties and American legal thought.
Graber says there is one interesting question now before the Bush Administration, which is will (it) try to defend its version of judicial activism or, more typically, deny that the administration has any agenda other than vague strict construction? At least Democrats openly admit the forms of judicial activism they favor."
And Associate Professor of Education, Jeffrey Milem says, "Justice O'Connor's retirement creates an important void on the court, particularly when you consider that she has cast the deciding vote on many important cases related to women's rights, civil rights, and affirmative action in recent years." Milem is an expert on Affirmative Action and has conducted extensive research looking at racial dynamics in Higher Education.
See this release (with late-breaking comments) on the web at: http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/culture/release.cfm?ArticleID=1095
For a complete list of experts who can talk about the O'Connor resignation and future of the Supreme Court, please see our Supreme Court Hot Topic list at:http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/experts/hottopic.cfm?hotlist_id=26
RSS