Posted on 09/09/2005 8:09:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor steered clear of directly discussing the big issues facing the nation's highest court while visiting the University of Florida's law school Friday.
O'Connor spoke before a crowd of 500 but did not mention the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the nomination of John Roberts to replace him, or her own delayed retirement plans. What she did address was political influence on the judiciary.
"I am against judicial reform driven by nakedly partisan, result-oriented reasons," O'Connor told the group. "The experience of developing countries, former communist countries and our own political culture teaches us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their own preferred policies."
Without naming names, she faulted politicians from both parties for not understanding judicial independence.
"We have the power to make the other branches of government really angry," she said. She spoke at the dedication of a new university law library named for Lawton Chiles, a former Florida governor who died in 1998.
O'Connor, 75, announced her retirement in July but promised to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed.
Bush initially nominated federal appellate judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor, but on Monday nominated him to succeed Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Roberts' confirmation hearings are to begin next week.
Well, I'm against "judicial reform" too, I just want it to go back to the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be when they framed the Constitution.
O'Connor is about the last person I would ask a legal opinion from. She's just an EEO disaster.
Preferably before Marbury vs Madison ...
All Marxists should be mum all the time.
Thank you, Sandra. Good Marxist! Good Marxist!
That's what I meant, a judiciary as it was laid out in 1789.
"O'Connor is about the last person I would ask a legal opinion from. She's just an EEO disaster."
No, she isn't sadly. Over 50% of the time (probably in the mid 60s), she was a fine justice.
Of course the fringe left still hates her for Bush vs Gore.
At least with Kennedy, President Reagan had the excuse of a Democratic Senate that'd already nixed Bork and Douglas Ginsburg (in effect). But with Sandra, he was just fulfilling his horrible 1980 pledge to appoint a woman. How about let's keep a mantra that should unite all liberals and conservatives: appoint people/admit students who are THE BEST QUALIFIED, without bean-counting and nods to race and sex. Is that too complicated??
But she has become increasingly worthless on social and cultural issues. The only good recent vote vote in that area I can think of is the 5-4 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts against the radical gay lobby.
And her talk of 'judicial independence' is nonsense, because what she really means is the same thing meant by all who scream it whenever the Court's absurd decisions get the derision and criticism they deserve -- judicial supremacy. If they don't like it, then they should stop making themselves into just another political instrument. And why whine about it anyway? Its not like anyone is actually doing anything about it other than talk. Their supremacy, though never intended, is assured.
There were a couple other positive rulings that she made, US vs Lopez comes to mind. I am sure if you poked through history you'd find more social and cultural cases in the past few years where she did vote with Scalia and company.
That said, you are right, her early years of solid jurisprudence have been swept away by an increasing number of activist rulings in recent years. At one time she was said to be a Rehnquist like conservative. It's sad, really.
Her time will end in a few months, thankfully. And while I thank her for her service, I don't consider her worthy of the respect given to our great Chief Justice.
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.