Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Mar 10, 2006 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2006 #2
    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 almost sounds like the suggestion is being made to assassinate judges who are just.(or just don't go along with the program)
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2006
  4. Mar 10, 2006 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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? :rolleyes:
     
  5. Mar 10, 2006 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  6. Mar 10, 2006 #5

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    NO! It's all conspiracy theory!!!! :rolleyes: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  7. Mar 11, 2006 #6

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Jesus God, did any of you read what the commentators at the bottom of the page had to say about her?
     
  8. Mar 11, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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!
     
  9. Mar 11, 2006 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Her choosing to spend more time with her husband - who's suffering from Alzheimer's - somehow devalues her argument ?
     
  10. Mar 11, 2006 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 gotta say alzheimers is the worst as far as im 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.
     
  11. Mar 11, 2006 #10
    Yeah I did LYN,
    Russ made comments very much like at least one them.
    Penguino,
    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.
     
  12. Mar 11, 2006 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  13. Mar 11, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Mar 11, 2006 #13
    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.
     
  15. Mar 11, 2006 #14
    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.

    http://www.law.com/servlet/jsp/article.jsp?id=1132740311603
     
  16. Mar 11, 2006 #15
    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?
     
  17. Mar 11, 2006 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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".
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2006
  18. Mar 11, 2006 #17
    [Sarcasm=strong]Right, like speaking out against the Bush administration will alienate her from her peers.[/Sarcasm]
     
  19. Mar 11, 2006 #18
    How do you know what her work environment is like?
     
  20. Mar 11, 2006 #19
    While I could say the same about your comment, I will refrain from pointing that out. :wink:
    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.
     
  21. Mar 11, 2006 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP and warns of the beginnings of dictatorship
  1. Rebuilding the GOP (Replies: 55)

  2. Scary New GOP Poll (Replies: 41)

Loading...