scott1
- 350
- 1
I wonder how much money the lobyist payed her to say this?
The discussion centers around Sandra Day O'Connor's recent critique of the GOP and her warnings regarding threats to judicial independence. Participants explore the implications of her statements, the timing of her retirement, and the broader context of political influence on the judiciary.
Participants generally do not reach a consensus. There are multiple competing views regarding O'Connor's motivations, the appropriateness of her critique, and the implications of her retirement.
Some participants reference the potential influence of political pressures on judicial independence and the historical context of judicial roles in political discourse. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the responsibilities of judges and the impact of personal circumstances on public statements.
scott1 said:I wonder how much money the lobyist payed her to say this?
Saying that things need to change and then not acting to change them herself - or rather, deriding the change when she herself was the cause (the court becoming more conservative because she left). Its the same as the 'if you don't vote, you can't complain' thing. To complain about something that you could have affected but chose not to is hypocritical.cyrusabdollahi said:How did she say one thing and do another?
Well, she is a judge or associate justice of the Supreme Court, and the Alito nomination was a political decision, whereby the president nominated and Congress gave advice and consent.franzbear! said:. . . but why was she silent thorugh the entire Alito nomination? Why did she say nothing before she left the bench? Why the silence when speaking up could have done good? On one hand she condenms the administration, and on the other she sits idly by, . . .