Posted on 04/05/2007 8:05:23 AM PDT by ZGuy
At a conference at Southern Methodist University yesterday, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her concern about partisan attacks on judges "coming out of the halls of Congress and out of state legislatures across the country."
Neat trick: Blaming Americans' distrust of the Judicial Branch on criticism of judicial activism instead of blaming judicial activism.
From an AP report on Fox News:
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday that she has grown weary of partisan attacks on judges, criticisms that she believes are causing citizens to lose faith in the judicial system.
O'Connor detailed plans to establish a Web site to teach schoolchildren about the judicial branch of government during a speech to law students, lawyers and fellow judges at a judicial conference at Southern Methodist University.
O'Connor, 77, said she finds troubling the "increased number of attack on judges that are coming out of the halls of Congress and out of state legislatures across the country." Single-issue advocacy groups are tagging judges with labels such as "activist judges" or "godless, secular humanists" to win passage of propositions or amendments to state constitutions, she said.
"The founders of our country did not intend that Congress or the legislative branch dictate results in specific cases," O'Connor said. "I think we're hearing more criticisms about judges than I've heard in my very long lifetime."
Yeah, it’s a shame the court door didn’t hit her ass on the way out.
Sounds like she is suffering from Alzheimer’s...I’m glad she chose to retire when she did!
O’Connor and her ilk feel that judges should be like demigods, unaccountable to anybody and not to be questioned under any circumstances. The arrogance on display here is just truly astonishing.
That's my favorite word in her title.
Sorry, Sandra Day. Decisions such as Kelo demonstrate how truly despicable the unelected Judiciary has become.
She should hve left sooner,no loss.
What part of co-equal branches of government does she not understand?
The Congress and Executive are not exempt from critcism, what makes the Judcial exempt?
She should have left sooner,no loss.
Huh? Since when did O'Connor care about what the founders intended? That being said if the results of specific cases are indeed that specific then the results should not be expanded to represent "the law of the land".
BTW, if your ears are getting red because of what a few empty suits are saying, you should check out the blogosphere...your ears will melt off of your thick, activist skull.
I'm SOOOOO glad that your are a FORMER justice. Too bad you stayed so long.
Let’s face it Sandra baby, the court has spewed a lot of very bad precedent that gives both the court and congress powers never delegated to them.
This is the same woman who voted to uphold McCain-Feingold because it was only a “marginal” infringement of the First Amendment. So I’m not surprised that she regards the exercise of free speech (in this case, criticism of the judiciary) as a bad thing. I expect nothing less from a “marginal” justice.
What explains this? It is easy. She is not a woman of principle; rather, she is a glorified union spokesman. It just so happens that, in this case, the union is for Federal judges. When it comes right down to it, she is more passionate about defending the behavior of the members of her own profession (right or wrong) than she is about our Constitution and our system of government.
If the USSC could learn to just read English and quit making up or reinterpreting the Constitution as though WE THE PEONS can not read and understand the written words then she might understand WHY we do not believe in the Courts superority.
She’s in good company-there’s alot of concern right now in America about too much free speech. I wonder if she supports jailing ‘global warming deniers’? Maybe she’s bucking for a university president’s job. She’d be a perfect fit.
In response to FORMER Justice O’Connor’ assertion:
BULL$H!T !!!!!!!!!!
This lady is just proving what happens to a persons brain in old age. This is true of all of the elderly on the court. An age limit for remaining on the court ought to be 70 years of age or maybe even younger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.