Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

From high court, a Truman tale (O'Connor says judges make law)
Kansas City Star ^ | May 7, 2005 | Brian Burnes

Posted on 05/07/2005 6:54:40 PM PDT by hocndoc

The lesson, O'Connor said, is not merely that a president's Supreme Court appointments often disappoint that same chief executive.

“It is that our system of government is one of delegated authority and separation of powers,” she said.

“By their ruling in the steel-seizure case, President Truman's appointees proved their friendship, I think, not by siding with the president for personal reasons, but by fulfilling their duty to decide each case as impartially as possible as members of a separate branch of government.

“In short, as members of a truly independent judiciary.”

Afterward, O'Connor met with federal judges and staffers at the federal courthouse in downtown Kansas City, where she praised the work of local judges and court professionals.

“The law of the country is not made in the courthouse where I sit,” O'Connor said. “It's made here. This is where people receive the justice they get out of our system.”

Of course, sometimes litigants are not happy and they appeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: balances; constitution; judiciary; law; oconnor; scotus; separation
This is a free registration site. I'm in Kansas City for a conference, and saw this comment on an article about Sandra Day O'Connor receiving an award.

I always thought that Law was made by the representatives of the people, the Legislative branch.

1 posted on 05/07/2005 6:54:41 PM PDT by hocndoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
I always thought that Law was made by the representatives of the people, the Legislative branch.

Until it comes before a court, then the Law is what the judges say it is.

2 posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:23 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Good catch. She's an arrogant one.


3 posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:40 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

THIS is a gal, that makes my beloved, confused Mother who died of Alzheimer's in '99 look like a bloomin' genius!
Now that we have all had the opportunity to understand this disease, we, as a family, realize that Mom was ill at least seven years prior to her diagnosis. She managed to live for seven more years.

S.D.O. Yo! Momma! Gotta Go!


4 posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:42 PM PDT by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

The liberals say that O'Connor is a conservative.

BS.


5 posted on 05/07/2005 7:05:13 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Part of the problem is that statutes are written by laws. They try to make it "fit" the existing law, which means that often the intention of the new law is lost.


6 posted on 05/07/2005 7:38:50 PM PDT by RobbyS (JMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

As an American I do have a problem with some elderly folks deciding how I should live, or not live, e.g. abortion. Perhaps the Justices of the Supreme Court should undergo some sort of examination from year to year to determine their mental status. Or, better yet, let them serve till age 70 and that's it.


7 posted on 05/07/2005 7:58:35 PM PDT by maxwellp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maxwellp
Or, better yet, let them serve till age 70 and that's it.

How about term limits?

Let them serve 12 years, and then get another judge. 12 years should be long enough, and independent enough, for any judge.

8 posted on 05/07/2005 8:22:34 PM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
“In short, as members of a truly independent judiciary.”

...yet Ms. Sandra sided with foreign courts just recently to come to a decision on the death sentence for 18 year olds.

The liberals say that O'Connor is a conservative.

BS is right! She was/is a Babbitt liberal from AZ.

9 posted on 05/07/2005 9:48:38 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
This is the same skank who did an interview on ABC right after her and Stephens returned from a global meeting in Europe. In that interview she told Stephanopolis that our Constitution was going to be irrelevant in today's global world. Yes, it was treason!! She thinks we will need to throw our Constitution out the door, and bend over for the UN.
10 posted on 05/07/2005 9:58:55 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

12 years sounds good to me!


11 posted on 05/09/2005 2:26:22 PM PDT by maxwellp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson