[starfish923]

Now we just have to get through all the butthump about what a WUNNERFUL judge she was....the first WOMAN butthump and the LIBERAL butthump.
Oh well.

I hope she fades away fast.

[hosepipe]

[ Goodbye, Sandra...and Good Riddance! - (didn't belong on SCOTUS in the first place; incompetent!) ]

Had to be said...

[river rat]

FINALLY!

Someone GETS IT.

Now if only President Bush sees it this way and chooses wisely.

Semper Fi

[Congressman Billybob]

Good evening, my friend,

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

Latest column: "Replace Justice O'Connor -- But Which One?"

[EGPWS]

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.

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[aquila48]

The term (moderate) simply does not apply. It is a political distinction, and part of a judge's job is to be apolitical.

Excellent point! The same would apply to a "moderate journalist".

[Lx]

Well at least she was pretty hot! Hubba Hubba

[nothingnew]

Thanks Char...sent off to my most important people.

Happy Independence Day!

FMCDH(BITS)

[nightdriver]

"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."

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?

[tflabo]

"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. "

How right on you are Charlite. Glad to see this flip-floppin' grandma (Sandy baby...not) take a hike. She has been awful on abortion, sodomy and religious symbols issues. Any judge who would seek to remove God I ask that God remove them. She was the female version of Anthony Kennedy... another slug of the species.

IMO John Paul Stevens gets little attention. This RINO-lib old geezer has sided with Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter almost totally. Souter is such a weasel.....Ruthie's little yes m'am lib wuss. I hope and pray his weasel den in NH gets grabbed and demolished by the town of Weare. Make em live by their own ghastly rulings.

PS: it's WAR on and for the Judiciary! Time for the GOP to go GUTS UP already.

[Jackknife]

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.

The 'Clowns of the Black Cloak'.

[davidosborne]

MY CHOICE FOR SCOTUS......

ASHCROFT, John David, a Senator from Missouri; born in Chicago, Ill., on May 9, 1942; attended the public schools in Springfield, Missouri; graduated from Yale University 1964; received J.D. degree from University of Chicago School of Law 1967; admitted to the bar in Springfield 1967; taught business law at Southwest Missouri State University; state auditor of Missouri 1973-1975; attorney general of Missouri 1976-1985; Governor of Missouri 1985-1993; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1994 and served from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2001; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 2000; attorney general of the United States, 2001-.