Posted on 07/04/2005 2:11:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Ronald Reagan, like all presidents, made a few mistakes while he was in office, and one of his more regrettable blunders was nominating a judge by the name of Sandra Day O'Connor for a position on the highest court in the land.
Although many people in the left-wing media like to refer to her as a "moderate" jurist, that characterization only proves that they have no idea what a judge's job actually is. Using the word ''moderate'' to describe a judge is like using the word Jewish to describe a cat. The term simply does not apply. It is a political distinction, and part of a judge's job is to be apolitical.
Of course, some judges, like Ms. O'Connor and a few of her chums on the Supreme Court (USSC) have never been able to leave their political biases out of the equation when making legal decisions. But instead of journalists calling them what they really are, which is just plain incompetent, they get labeled things like moderate.
I don't know about you, but I've yet to figure out how a judge goes about making a moderate ruling. I was always under the impression that there were only two kinds of rulings, proper and improper, but apparently a third type exists somewhere in between the two.
Something else I keep hearing people in the media say is that Ms. O'Connor has been a key "swing vote" on the court. This assertion annoys the hell out of me, because the people making it are implying that the court is made up of four liberals, four conservatives, and the independent Justice Sandra, who sits around weighing the arguments of each ideological side and then, in her infinite wisdom, rules with the side she believes makes the most sense at any given time.
As I pointed out before, using such a term to describe a USSC justice is totally inappropriate. The words "swing vote" are political in nature, and therefore inapplicable. These people aren't a legislative committee; they're a panel of judges! Their rulings are supposed to be based upon the literal meaning of the written laws of the land, and when they consider cases in which questions of constitutionality are raised, they are duty bound to interpret the meaning of the words within that document without regard to their own political views.
The fact of the matter is that there are only two types of Supreme Court Justices, originalists, who try to understand what the Constitution's authors intended their words to mean when they wrote them, and activists, who seek to manipulate the intended meaning of those words to fit their personal ideologies.
Sandra Day O'Connor is--and has always been--a member of the latter group, and it is for that reason alone that she should never have been appointed to the high court, or been allowed to sit on any court which deals with constitutional issues.
Thankfully, she has just decided to retire, and in my opinion, not a moment too soon. Unfortunately, even if she is replaced by a competent originalist judge, there will still be five activists (aka fascists in black robes) gumming up the works for years to come, and their names are Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
About the Writer: Edward Daley is a freelance writer who resides in New England. He is owner of the website, The Daley Times-Post, which can be accessed at: http://users.adelphia.net/~thofab/index2.htm.
Comments: thofab@adelphia.net
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.
