Posted on 07/04/2005 2:11:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I hope she fades away fast.
Had to be said...
FINALLY!
Someone GETS IT.
Now if only President Bush sees it this way and chooses wisely.
Semper Fi
This writer addresses the same subjects, and nearly the same points, that I did. It is important, however, to draw a valid distinction between who Sandra O'Connor was when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court versus who she is today.
Congressman Billybob
wasnt she ok early on?
A gargantuan mistake would be to focus on the very few mistakes of Ronald Reagan and forget the many achievements he had.
Sandra Day O'Connor isn't to be considered a massive blunder on Ronald Reagan's part, it's just the focus today because of the situation long after his excellent service as POTUS in the past.
I'm really worried about who he'll nominate. Anxiously waiting the announcement.
Interseting posting.
This is how the Supreme Court breaks down now:
Three Constitutionalists, Justices Antonin Scalia, Charance Thomas, and William Rehnquest. Rehnquest seems to have a slightly more libertarian bent than his two colleagues.
Three judicial activists, liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
The three others are a little harder to pigeonhole. David Souter isn't quite as bad as Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, but he comes close--close enough to be a major dissapointment. Anthony Kennedy votes Constitutionalist more often than not, but he's unreliable.
And that leaves O'Conner. On nearly every 5 to 4 vote, she voted with the majority. I honestly don't know what to think of her. She was mostly conservative in her early years, but drifted to the left. However, she didn't drift to the degree that Harry Blackman did, and one shouldn't overstate her liberalism.
Bush wants very much to do the right thing for the country and the Constitution, but he's faced with unpleasant political realities.
Excellent point! The same would apply to a "moderate journalist".
I guess she succumbed to what's been called the "Greenhouse Effect". Linda Greenhouse is the very leftist Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times. She's quite representative of overall "mainstream" media coverage of the Supreme Court. When a constitutionalist judge abandons his (in this case, her) principles and becomes more and more of a liberal activist, Miss Greenhouse and her cronies will heap praise upon the judge. "Oh, how Justice O'Connor has grown," we'll be told. "She was so harsh and hostile to civil rights when she first was appointed, but now she's mellowed and is more humane and nuanced."
Some judges with egos love this type of media attention. Only a strong intellect such as Scalia or Thomas seems able to resist it.
I don't think Bush is in a winning position on this one...
Instead, I suggest he send all the black robes into early retirement on 9-30-05, and lock the doors on the SCOTUS. Declare a national holiday, and then tell Congress they are next. All Hail King George!
First act as King is to secure our borders from illegal immigrants...ok, I got carried away. I am turning my TV to the Military Channel until I hear there is a new 'approved' justice. Yeah, right.
If you want to see a real blunder:
Thanks 41!!
Happy Independence Day!
FMCDH(BITS)
If only it were that easy. If it were that simple, Thomas and Scalia would always agree, yet there are instances where they wind up on different sides of a decision.
True, but reasonable people can disagree on things. Judges aren't expected to be robots.
Would that it were the case.
So what do we do when they overstep their office?
The way it reads is as follows:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form...., establish....., insure..., provide...., promote..., and secure..., DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
"WE,THE PEOPLE!"
Note that it does NOT say: "We, the Supreme Court of the United States."
It is OUR Constitution and, as it states in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any FORM of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.."
Sounds like we (many of whom have also taken the Oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic) have the right and duty to arrest and remove from office the offending Supreme Court justices.
Hmmm?
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.
