Ladies and gentlemen, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has left the building. Unfortunately, she is likely taking a sense of good reason, rationality and independent thinking with her.

And with George W. Bush in charge of the new appointment, it isn’t likely that these traits will be restored.

On July 1, everybody’s favorite moderate conservative announced her resignation from the U.S. Supreme Court, immediately causing a flurry of speculation from the media and the American public.

Many anticipated that the next justice to resign would inevitably be William H. Rehnquist, 80, who suffers from thyroid cancer. Naturally, O’Connor’s announcement that she, instead, would be the next to go stirred controversy not only for this reason but for a variety of others as well.

O’Connor was the first woman in the history of the United States to be appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1981. Since then, only one other woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has joined these ranks.

However, there is definite concern that in O’Connor’s absence, the voice for women’s rights will be all but silenced. Though Bush has yet to make any indication of who he will nominate, the list of his speculated options is not exactly heavily peppered with female candidates.

But the biggest looming concern does not so much pertain to the new justice’s gender as it does to just how much he or she leans to the right on controversial issues such as abortion.

Pro-choice advocates have been biting their nails in apprehension ever since Bush’s first term began. With only a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court clinging for dear life in favor of a woman’s right to choose, appointing a new justice who is adamantly pro-life could instantly reverse progress made in landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade.

Though the majority of the votes cast by O’Connor during her term were markedly conservative, she served as the swing vote in several cases which upheld abortion rights. Between 1989 and 1992, O’Connor voted twice in favor of abortion rights (and consequently the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision).

O’Connor’s willingness to stray from her party line in the face of the most crucial decisions was admirable. But will Bush replace her with someone made of equal moral fiber?

It would be reassuring to know that Bush is in the process of selecting a nominee whose politics and approach to voting are closely aligned with O’Connor’s. It would be nice to know that he is dedicated to maintaining the current balance of the court and allowing future trials to be judged as fairly as possible.

But we really don’t know that.

Bush will choose a conservative to replace a conservative, but the question remains how devoted to the right-wing agenda this person will actually be.

Since O’Connor’s announcement, focus quickly shifted to her potential replacements, namely Alberto R. Gonzales, current Attorney General and a good pal of Bush. The media targeted Gonzales almost immediately as the most likely to fill in the gap that O’Connor leaves.

However, staunch Republicans have often turned a nose up at Gonzales and accused him of disloyalty to the party because of his more moderate views on issues like abortion, which some say could cost him the nomination.

If Bush appoints Gonzales, however, he will be able to boast that he was the first to place a Hispanic in the Supreme Court.

Because Bush could stand to do a good deed or two, and not to mention the fact that this might give him something legitimate to brag about (because the whole “It’s hard work” claim about his job is not convincing anybody), Gonzales might possess the edge on his competition.

However, other speculated nominees are more troubling. Among them is the lone woman of the bunch, Edith Hollan Jones, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Despite being female, Jones has actively worked against a woman’s right to choose in her vote on McCorvey v. Hill (basically a Roe v. Wade Part 2).

Jones alluded that Roe v. Wade itself needs re-evaluation and agreed with the sentiment that giving a woman the choice of an abortion was “too risky.”

Needless to say, Jones is hardly someone I would like to see taking the place of the pro-choice O’Connor.

Another possible candidate for the job is J. Michael Luttig, whose father was murdered but who still insists he has an unbiased opinion of the death penalty, claiming he is perfectly able to keep his emotions separate from his judicial responsibilities.

Or he could pick Emilio Garza, who has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Clearly Bush has quite the array of true ideologues to choose from. The question is whether he will have the good sense to hold off on picking the ultimate right-winger for now, at least waiting until Rehnquist resigns — at least then he would be justified in replacing one extremist with another.

Until then, we can only hope that Bush opts to replace O’Connor with someone more indepently-thinking than some of the choices that have been lined up.

Then again, according to CNN, Bush could even come up with “a surprise choice not known in legal circles” at all.

So…it could be a total surprise, huh? Bush picking someone all on his own, minus the guidance or expectations of his advisors, his party or the American people to lead him?

Just leaving it up to Bush to drop the bombshell?

I can only say that I wait with bated breath for this one.

Send comments to Megan at [email protected]