I'm hearing that Bush is leaning towards Alberto Gonzales for the replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The news is reporting that Bush won't make an announcement until at least next Friday.

Update: Armando at Daily Kos explains his opposition to Gonzales.

Received by e-mail from the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty (NCADP):

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty issued the following statement Friday by Executive Director Diann Rust-Tierney:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has played an important role as the Supreme Court has begun to grapple more directly with the unfairness in the administration of the death penalty. She often cast the pivotal vote in close cases.

“Justice O’Connor expressed concern about the risk of innocent people being sentenced to death. Addressing a group of women lawyers in Minnesota, she once said,

‘If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed. More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death.’”

Received by e-mail, here's a portion:

Above all, Justice O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court. It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness. The decisions handed down by the Supreme Court profoundly affect the daily lives of all Americans. The Court is the final guardian of our constitutional rights and liberties. That is why the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy is so important.

The Constitution gives the President and the Senate shared responsibility to fill this vacancy, because the President may only act with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. At this critical moment, the President must recognize the Senate’s constitutional role. He should give life to the Advice and Consent Clause by engaging in meaningful consultation with Senators of both political parties.

Working with the Senate, the President should identify a highly qualified candidate whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream and who will make all Americans proud. With this nomination the President should choose to unite the country, not divide it. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Senate to fill this critical vacancy.

Received by e-mail, here's a portion:

This is the first Supreme Court vacancy in more than a decade, and Justice O’Connor’s replacement will greatly influence the future of our country. President Bush once claimed to be “a uniter, not a divider.” It is now his call whether he wants to launch a huge, divisive political battle with his choice or seek consensus and bring the nation together. I call on the President to work with members of Congress from both parties to select a nominee behind whom the entire country can unite.

People for the American Way outline what's at state with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement.

A Scalia-Thomas majority would not only reverse more than seven decades of Supreme Court legal precedents, but could also return us to a situation America faced in the first third of the 20th Century, when progressive legislation, like child labor laws, was adopted by Congress and signed by the President, but repeatedly rejected on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court.

A shift of one or two votes would reverse Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of reproductive freedom and the right to privacy. But that would just be the beginning. Among those rights that could be drastically redefined if just one or two hard-right justices join the Court are:

The Move-On Pac will be airing this ad (QT video link) on CNN and other stations.

MoveOn PAC unveiled a new TV ad today aimed at discouraging President Bush from picking an extremist judge to replace outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He should honor O’Connor and appoint a moderate justice. The almost $280,000 ad by will air on CNN in ME, NE, SC and VA, and on CNN and FOX in NY and DC as part of MoveOn PAC’s grassroots mobilization to empower Americans and persuade the Senate to protect our basic rights by rejecting an extremist nominee.

“Our message to the President as he considers nominees to the Supreme Court is ‘Protect Our Rights.’ Our message to the Senate when it considers the President’s nominee is ‘Protect Our Rights’,” said Ben Brandzel, Advocacy Director for MoveOn PAC.

“The President should honor O’Connor and appoint a moderate Supreme Court justice. We’re very concerned because we all saw the President undermine individual rights and invade a family’s privacy in the Terri Schiavo case a few months ago. If President Bush nominates an extremist, it will be up to Senators to say no, and the American people will make sure that they do just that,” he added.

Huge news today. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. Here is her letter:

Dear President Bush:

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor.

"It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the Court for 24 terms.

"I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the Court and its role under our constitutional structure."

Sincerely,

Sandra Day O'Connor

Bush will now have his opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. He is expected to move quickly. Bush will make a statement later this morning.

Senator Harry Reid has proposed several consensus candidates to the Supreme Court.

Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. Reid described them all as bright and able lawyers who would be strong additions to the nation's highest court.

I have to disagree. None of those would be acceptable to me. They are all either lacking in judicial experience or far too much to the right. I think Supreme Court Justices should have a proven judicial record and be free of the appearance of impropriety that comes with long-standing political loyalties gained through fundraising for Senate elections.

The best consensus choice would be 5th Circuit Appeals Court Justice Ed Prado. President Bush nominated him for the 5th Circuit and he was overwhelmingly approved (97 to 0.) He's been on the federal bench since Reagan appointed him to the Distict Court in 1984.

Judge Prado is the only judicial nominee of President Bush's that I have endorsed.

Draft Prado.

Update: Here's Senator Schumer's 2003 list of consensus candidates and Judge Prado is on it.

And Lindsay Graham says he's not interested:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke in Georgia today at a Judge's swearing in ceremony:

Thomas noted that his court ended its term on Monday as "winds of controversy swirled about the Court's decisions and, unfortunately, about the imagined resignations."

From his mouth to Bush's ear. Let's hope Rehnquist and O'Connor last out Bush's term. [Via CrimProf Blog].

Via Scotus Blog:

The Supreme Court recessed for the summer Monday morning, with no announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of his plans to retire or to remain on the Court. The day's session ended after the announcement of six final rulings. Final orders of the Term will be issued at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

UPI:

Sources close to the White House have revealed President Bush may be considering appointing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, suffering from thyroid cancer, has not officially announced his retirement, but experts expect him to step down at the end of the court's term next week, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

The Post said Bush and his advisors are focusing on three candidates, including Gonzales and federal appeals Judges John Roberts and J. Michael Luttig. The newspaper said Bush's dilemma revolves around conflicting desires to pick a reliable conservative and to make history with the first Hispanic chief justice.

by TChris

There's no doubt that the sprawling Ninth Circuit has a huge caseload, but that isn't the motivation underlying conservative efforts to divide the circuit into two or three parts. Long viewed by the right as a "liberal" circuit, conservatives hope to diminish its influence by breaking it into smaller pieces.

Next week, Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, plans to introduce a bill to split the circuit into three parts. Representative Mike Simpson, Republican of Idaho, has already introduced legislation that would create two new appellate courts for the area.

Right wing Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, doesn't want to approve the addition of judgeships to any circuit (even though that would be the best solution to the workload problem) until the Ninth Circuit has been split. Most Ninth Circuit judges oppose the plan.