Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP and warns of the beginnings of dictatorship

[ComputerGeek]

Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship

She is a true patriot.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002903.html

 

[Amp1]

I appreciate what she said and agree with her. I feel in my gut that she didn't allow wider media exposure of her presentation was in part due to what she said in the transcrips about the judiciary being targeted by those who want policies promoting their agenda glossed over.

...It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas Sen. John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in court and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.
Now, the kicker:

O’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms -- recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges stripping the courts of jurisdictions and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decision that political leaders disagree with...

It almost sounds like the suggestion is being made to assassinate judges who are just.(or just don't go along with the program)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Strong words coming from a person of her stature; that is, being an expert - the very definition of "expert" - on the Constitution.

Or shall we chalk this up to just more sensationalism?

 

[russ_watters]

Strong words coming from someone who chose to retire while someone she disagrees with was President.

She was a good judge, but by choosing to resign last year, she cut her own argument off at the knee.

 

[Tsu]

Or shall we chalk this up to just more sensationalism?

NO! It's all conspiracy theory! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[loseyourname]

Jesus God, did any of you read what the commentators at the bottom of the page had to say about her?

 

[Pengwuino]

Looks like 0 real news outlets are reporting this and that people are reporting NPR's transcript was cherry-picked. The left jumping on sensationalism? I don't believe it!

 

[Gokul43201]

Strong words coming from someone who chose to retire while someone she disagrees with was President.

She was a good judge, but by choosing to resign last year, she cut her own argument off at the knee.

Her choosing to spend more time with her husband - who's suffering from Alzheimer's - somehow devalues her argument ?

 

[Pengwuino]

Her choosing to spend more time with her husband - who's suffering from Alzheimer's - somehow devalues her argument ?

In defense of russ... his argument is somewhat valid if the situation still exists that she is capable of going out and making speeches like this.

Off topic however, i got to say alzheimers is the worst as far as I am concerned. In anything else, you lose a love one sure... but it's a horrible feeling to see the connections you made with someone for decades to just be cut off on one side by that disease.

 

[Amp1]

Yeah I did LYN,
Russ made comments very much like at least one them.
Penguino,

In defense of russ...

I can't see why having a loved one suffering from AD should keep anyone from going out or doing precisely what Mrs. O'Connor did as long as proper arraignments are made to have them cared for.

It's likely that she sees or has reasons even knowledge that we are not privy to that prompts her to express her views at this time.

 

[russ_watters]

Jesus God, did any of you read what the commentators at the bottom of the page had to say about her?

If you are alluding to the post about her husband having Alzheimer's, no I didn't see that before. That's the first I've heard of it. It certainly changes my opinion.

 

[Pengwuino]

I can't see why having a loved one suffering from AD should keep anyone from going out or doing precisely what Mrs. O'Connor did as long as proper arraignments are made to have them cared for.

It's likely that she sees or has reasons even knowledge that we are not privy to that prompts her to express her views at this time.

Which is in utter contradiction to what is going on here. I just personally have a hard time believing that her husband is in such good (relatively) shape and is cared for otherwise that she is capable of going around and doing college speeches yet he is also in such bad shape that she can look at this utter dictatorship, country destroying, civil liberty hating administration and actually resign one of the most powerful positions on Earth capable of stopping such an administration.

Don't be blind.

 

[franzbear!]

I agree with Pengwuino, I have a hard time believing her when she retired. Why would she leave a position where she could stop it when she knew that by doing so she would just hurry it along. This duplicity cannot be overlooked.

For those saying that she can only speak about it now that she is retired, that's utter folly. Judges are appointed for life, and once they are in they can do and say pretty much anything they like. There is no constituancy to answer to. You know that a judge could make the most ludicrous statements and they aren't going to be impeached. If she really felt this strongly about the issue she should have said so before she left, in order to make sure a liberal got in. Instead she said nothing and allowed Alito to take her place.

 

[edward]

She had indicated in earlier speeches that she was not satisfied with the situation in the courts. and that the courts should remain independent of political influence.

Judge O'Connor is 75 years old and has served this country well.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is not moving quietly toward retirement.

O'Connor's speech Nov. 7 to the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Washington, D.C., was a rip-snorting defense of judicial independence that criticized ? without naming them -- former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and even the late president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom she described as "the fellow on the dime."

http://www.law.com/servlet/jsp/article.jsp?id=1132740311603

 

[Cyrus]

For those saying that she can only speak about it now that she is retired, that's utter folly. Judges are appointed for life, and once they are in they can do and say pretty much anything they like. There is no constituancy to answer to. You know that a judge could make the most ludicrous statements and they aren't going to be impeached. If she really felt this strongly about the issue she should have said so before she left, in order to make sure a liberal got in. Instead she said nothing and allowed Alito to take her place.

You do realize she has to work and interact with her fellow judges, and if she outcasts herself she will effectively shoot herself in the foot, right?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Justices, and judges generally, are supposed to exhibit "judicial temperament"; of course that means more to some of them than to others. One of the major tenets of the JT culture is not to speak publicly on current events, because it could predjudice future cases presented before that jurist. If it were known which side of a political divide a jurist's inner feelings lay, lawyers would try to pitch their presentatios in that direction.

My father, a career Naval Officer, had very strong conservative opinions, but until he retired, he never spoke of them, even at home, and he never voted. This was because the US military was strongly inculcated against political involvement, a tenet that was reenforced every time a group of Colonels took over and deposed a popularly elected government in the name of "Law and Order".

 

[franzbear!]

You do realize she has to work and interact with her fellow judges, and if she outcasts herself she will effectively shoot herself in the foot, right?

[Sarcasm=strong]Right, like speaking out against the Bush administration will alienate her from her peers.[/Sarcasm]

 

[Cyrus]

How do you know what her work environment is like?

 

[franzbear!]

While I could say the same about your comment, I will refrain from pointing that out.
What I will say is that even though I don't know any of them personally, I do know that she would not be alone in her opinion. When Ginsburg stated that we should look to international precedent to make our laws, I knew that no matter how extreme any of the other judges might be, no one could top her. O'Connor could make the most outragious claim, and she still would not be alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Alienating her peers isn't the issue - you do realize judges can be impeached, right franzbear? It isn't easy to do, but basing your decisions on a political adjenda instead of the Constitution would qualify. Being neutral is a requirement of the job.

 

[franzbear!]

She couldn't be impeached over this. How is it wrong that she thinks certain actions infringe on the constitution? That seems to me as if she is upholding her oath! I honestly couldn't even imagine her being impeached over this statement. As I said before, a lot wilder statements have been made and nothing has been done about them.

 

[loseyourname]

If you are alluding to the post about her husband having Alzheimer's, no I didn't see that before. That's the first I've heard of it. It certainly changes my opinion.

I'm referring to some of the rabid hatred of her, saying she belonged to the Republican party, and intentionally put Bush in office with her swing vote in Gore v Bush so that she could retire and assure that Bush would be there to appoint another conservative hack. They're flat-out accusing her of treason.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm referring to some of the rabid hatred of her, saying she belonged to the Republican party, and intentionally put Bush in office with her swing vote in Gore v Bush so that she could retire and assure that Bush would be there to appoint another conservative hack. They're flat-out accusing her of treason.

But of course, it is the current trend (e.g., sedition has become a resurrected word).

I'm just now reading through this thread. I can't believe it. Sandra Day O'Connor is an incredible woman who's life achievements and superior job as a Justice will long be remembered. Those of you criticizing her could only hope to be as much. It sickens me.

 

[franzbear!]

Well, I don't intend to critize her, or smear her. I'm only saying that it's a little odd that she would retire if she truly believed Bush was that dangerous. Certainly that's justifiable to claim, since nobody, and I mean nobody, is perfect enough to be above questioning.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm only saying that it's a little odd that she would retire if she truly believed Bush was that dangerous.

Why is it odd? Is she supposed to work until the day she dies just to please you?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm referring to some of the rabid hatred of her, saying she belonged to the Republican party, and intentionally put Bush in office with her swing vote in Gore v Bush so that she could retire and assure that Bush would be there to appoint another conservative hack. They're flat-out accusing her of treason.

Ehh, it's an unmoderated message board. That's what you get for reading it... :tongue:

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it odd? Is she supposed to work until the day she dies just to please you?

No, to please herself. That's the point. It is saying one thing and doing another.

However, the husband with alzheimers thing makes that kinda moot.

 

[ComputerGeek]

to those that are complaining about her leaving if she truly felt the way she does, and then saying she must not have needed to tend to her husband as much as she claimed if she is giving speeches... please stop and think.

Do you really think that giving A speech is as consuming of an activity as showing up for court eevry day of the week for 5 months and then spendign the rest of the year reading up on case law and researching and opinion writing?

 

[Cyrus]

No, to please herself. That's the point. It is saying one thing and doing another.

How did she say one thing and do another?

 

[franzbear!]

How did she say one thing and do another?

It's just that if she felt this strongly she wouldn't just start saying it now. I'll give that she can retire, 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, without saying a word, when her replaced is the type she is now warning against. That is the duplicity.

 

[scott1]

I wonder how much money the lobyist payed her to say this?

 

[Cyrus]

I thought Lobbyists buy off congressmen.

 

[scott1]

I guess they by off fromer suprme court judges too.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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?

 

[deckart]

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...