*** VISIT MATTVEASEY.COM FOR NEW ITEMS ***
Showing posts with label Sandra Day O'Connor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandra Day O'Connor. Show all posts

Saturday, February 27, 2010

1981: A New Beginning


All this year at my Facebook page, I have been taking a daily trip back in time to the 1980's. Each month I am highlighting a different year chronologically.

This month have been featuring the music, tv, movies, and important events of 1981. You can also follow this little mini-series of articles on each year of the "1980's'" by clicking on to that 'label' below this article.

As we all know, a new decade does not actually technically begin in a year that ends in a zero, it begins with the year ending in (1) one. So while 1981 might be the 2nd year of the 1980's, it's the first year of a new decade and marked a beginning in a couple of different chapters of my own life.

In late September of 1980, my little young family had moved into an apartment in South Philly. 1981 would be the first and only full calendar year that we would live there. It was an interesting year at what became simply known as 'the apartment' in our little circle of friends. We had many a Friday night party at the place in the early months of the year, but as the summer drew on things got a bit more crowded.

In another development of those early months, the news came to us that a new addition was expected in the Veasey clan. Having given birth to Chrissy the previous February, we learned that Anne was pregnant again. Given that she was due at the end of July 1981, it appeared that this was a post-World Series baby conceived in the immediate aftermath of the Phils' first-ever championship at the end of October.

So leaping forward, on July 30th, 1981, Kelly Anne Veasey came into the world. We had planned all along to actually name her 'Kerry' rather than 'Kelly'. But another young couple who lived on Anne's parents block in Prospect Park, PA, were due at the same time. They gave birth just before us, and named their new daughter 'Kerry'. That killed it, we weren't going to be seen as copy-cats. So 'Kelly' it was. A fine Irish name.

Monday, October 31, 2005

SCOTUS WARS

Kudos to President George W. Bush for getting it right, or should that be 'Right', this time around with today's nomination of Samuel Alito for a SCOTUS seat to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. 

Alito is currently a sitting judge on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court right here in Philadelphia. The 55-year old was appointed to that seat by the first President Bush, George H.W. back in 1990. 

Alito has been nicknamed "Scalia Lite" and "Scalito" due to a perceived similarity in judicial philosophy with conservative originalist Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Alito once clerked. 

Those who know him say that his temperament is more like that of new SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, and that his experience, intellect and charm will make it very difficult for the LibDems to defeat his nomination. 

Alito has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years, and if really an originalist as advertised, is exactly what the President's Republican conservative base has been looking for since previous nominee Harriet Miers removed her name from consideration. 

The nomination is absolutely certain to raise the ire, blood pressure and tempers of liberal democrats and their radical left-wing support organizations, and should trigger quite a battle in the process. 

But that philosophical battle is just what we on the right have been looking for all along. Let the SCOTUS WARS begin!

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Trouble With Harriet

President George W. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers, the official White House Counsel, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The nomination was made on Monday October 3rd, 2005, the same day that John Roberts officially took his seat as Bush’s first SCOTUS appointee, and also took the reigns as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the recently deceased William Rehnquist.

The fact that the President had the opportunity to appoint two new judges to the court at all during his term, let alone the rare opportunity to appoint two within a couple of months, should have been a cause for euphoric celebration on the Right, his and the Republican party’s base.

When Mr. Bush was elected, he promised his constituency that, if given an opportunity to make appointments to the court, his appointee(s) would be strict constructionists in the mold of current conservative SCOTUS stalwarts Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In last year’s Presidential election, Bush defeated Democratic nominee John Kerry by receiving over 62 million votes, the highest vote total ever received by any American candidate for the office.

A large number of these voters, certainly the vast majority needed to secure Mr. Bush’s victory, knew when they cast their ballots that there was a strong likelihood of at least one, and likely multiple SCOTUS openings that would be filled by the man sitting in the Oval Office during the next term.

Mr. Bush’s pledge to appoint solid conservatives who could likely be counted on to help reverse the court’s decades-long liberal leanings was one of the principal reasons that he received many of those votes.

So now, flash forward to less than a year after the election. Justice O’Connor announces her retirement, and within a couple of months, aging Chief Justice Rehnquist passes away after a period of ill health.

Within a year, Mr. Bush has the opportunity to reward those 62 million voters with a pair of solid, proven conservative constructionists.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Who is John Roberts, and Why Should You Care?

Earlier this week, in a nationally televised announcement befitting the importance of the occasion, President Bush introduced his nominee to the United States Supreme Court. He named Washington, D.C. circuit court judge John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

But just who is John Roberts, and why should you care? Why is this whole Supreme Court thing such a big deal?

Why are you going to be saturated with coverage of Roberts’ confirmation hearings, and why is the same thing going to happen as the President makes even more appointments in the future.

First, let’s get the biography out of the way. John Roberts is a 50-year old married father of two children, a native of Buffalo, New York who graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. While at Harvard he served as Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Out of law school in 1980, Roberts clerked for current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He moved on to become an associate counsel to the Reagan administration, and then took on the position of deputy solicitor general under the first George Bush, arguing cases for the government position in front of the Supreme Court.

Friday, July 1, 2005

Courting a Texas Originalist

The announcement was not unexpected, it had been rumored at least for weeks. And yet when Sandra Day O’Connor announced her resignation from the U.S. Supreme Court last week it still seemed to take many of us by surprise.

It has been 11 long years since the last opening occurred on the nation’s highest court, and it was beginning to seem like this latest coterie of individuals would preside over our most intimate and important issues forever.

Of course, nothing lasts forever but God Himself, and so this opening for a new appointment to the court was inevitable.

Mrs. O’Connor was the first female to ever be appointed to the court, named by the man who was just recently voted the greatest American in history by a poll conducted by the Discovery Channel and AOL, beloved former President Ronald Reagan.

However, it was not just making history that Reagan was after. He had been out front in helping defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, which proved to be the death knell for the activist womens’ movement that had swept across liberal America during the 1970’s.

In defeating the ERA, Reagan had promised to appoint the first woman to the high court if elected in 1980. When he nominated O’Connor, who was obviously pro-abortion in her decisions, the most conservative Senators fell in line and approved her, not wanting to challenge their staunchly conservative leader as he appointed the first woman ever to the court.