Is Sandra Day O'Connor's Critique of the GOP Too Late?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ComputerGeek
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

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.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express agreement with O'Connor's critique, highlighting concerns about increasing threats against judges and political motivations behind proposed judicial reforms.
  • Others question the timing of her critique, suggesting that her retirement while a president she disagreed with was in office undermines her arguments.
  • There are claims that her statements may be sensationalized or viewed as conspiracy theories by some participants.
  • Some argue that O'Connor's ability to speak out now that she is retired does not negate her responsibility to have voiced her concerns while still in office.
  • Participants discuss the implications of her husband's health on her capacity to engage in public discourse, with mixed views on whether this should affect the validity of her arguments.
  • There is a mention of the judicial temperament expected from judges, which may limit their public expressions on political matters while serving.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

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.

Contextual Notes

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.

  • #31
I wonder how much money the lobyist payed her to say this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I thought Lobbyists buy off congressmen.
 
  • #33
I guess they by off fromer suprme court judges too.
 
  • #34
scott1 said:
I wonder how much money the lobyist payed her to say this?

Right, because this could not possibly be her real feelings... nope... hey! anyone see a hole in the sand for my head?
 
  • #35
Now, you all understand that this is second hand information, right? Subject to being filtered and out of context.

Now, Alito is already doing campus speeches. I happened to overhear one recently on the radio about the infuence of foreign precedence on American courts and his opinions on the matter. So, nothing is preventing a SCJ from speaking their mind while in office.

Anyway...
 
  • #36
cyrusabdollahi said:
How did she say one thing and do another?
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
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, . . .
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.

Anyway, is Sandra Day O'Connor concerned about the dictatorship by the Supreme Court - No! She seems to be concerned about one party controlling both houses of Congress and NOT fulfilling its obligation of 'checks and balances' on the executive branch, as well as the fact that some members of congress seem to be motivated to undermine the role of the Federal and Supreme Courts in protecting the Constitution.

She could not comment on the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government, because that would be appear prejudicial with respect to any future actions. However, obviously, she has held those views while in office.

Very interesting developments.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K