O'Connor May Sit on Bench Again

Law.com ^ | March 13, 2006 | Tony Mauro

[ApplegateRanch]

No wonder the country is so screwed up. Even (former) Supremes don't understand the meaning of simple words...like RETIRED".

I thought she resigned to "sit" at her hubby's bedside.

BTW, would she be paid to sit, as well as collect her pension?

[Zack Nguyen]

Mrs. O'Connor can sit on any bench she likes, so long as it's a charity softball game.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Sandra Day O'Connor was one of two of the STUPIDEST things that Ronald Reagan EVER did. The other was appointing George HW Bush as his VP! The Bushies are too much East Coast liberal to lead this country properly.

Oh I don't know, giving amnesty to millions of illegals was right up there. Oh and sending Marines to Lebanon then running when attacked should be in the mix.

[beethovenfan]

A bench in what park?

[quantim]

What a different country we would have today

What a different country we would have today if voters didn't put liberals in positions of power in the first place.  In all fairness, we get the govt we deserve.

[hershey]

She's not a well woman.

[RasterMaster]

Only bench Sandra should be near is one where she can feed the pigeons at the park. Senile and delusional if she thinks there's a comeback tour for her.

[scrabblehack]

Retired justices can sit by designation on any federal court, but O'Connor did not indicate where she hopes to sit.

Designated by whom?

Yeah, John Quincy Adams sat in the House of Representatives after his Presidency but he still had to get elected.

Surely a retired justice can't just show up in a courtroom and say, "I'm here to hear a case?"

[Paleo Conservative]

What a different country we would have today if the Presidents conservatives elected had only appointed conservative judges.

Well it would have been different if the same voters who elected Ronald Reagan President twice by overwhelming margins had not sent DemocRATS back to control the Senate from 1987 to 1995. There are just three justices currently on the Supreme Court nominated by Republican presidents and confirmed by a Republican senate. They are Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Sam Alito. All the other members of the Supreme Court were confirmed by DemocRAT controlled senates.

[RasterMaster]

Now if she showed up to "take the bench" in one of those carnival dunk tanks....I'll buy 'em out of tickets!

[Borges]

'All Judicial Power' means the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial Review is right out of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Even Justice Scalia has no problems with it.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Surely a retired justice can't just show up in a courtroom and say, "I'm here to hear a case?""

---

Federal Courts of Appeals initially hear cases in three-judge panels, and often there aren't three judges in the Circuit to hear a certain appeal (because of scheduling conflicts and recusals). District Court judges often "sit by designation" in a Circuit three-judge panel, but Supreme Court Justices may also sit by designation in a panel (and do so from time to time). I wasn't aware that retired Justices may also sit by designation, but have no reason to doubt O'Connor on that particular issue. As for who does the designating, I would guess that the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals in question would be the one who could name someone to fill up a three-judge panel.

[Tzimisce]

There is NO MENTION of Judicial Review in the Constitution.

It's refreshing to know that the courts can read themselves all kinds of new powers. :)

[Borges]

There is however in the Federalist which is the basic document used for interpreting the intentions of the FF. Look there has to be a final word on what the Constitution means. It can't be Congress since they make laws and obviously don't think any of them are unconstitutional. It can't be the President because that makes him too much like a King. What do you think the role of a Judge should be? Adviser? 'Judicial Power' has to mean something.

[Tzimisce]

I agree - but it is a weakness in our system. The Judicial branch is the only branch that can rule any way it wants - and they do use external sources all the time. Not just the federalist papers either - sometimes they use international law to make their decisions.

You don't think that's a big deal? What if the courts decide that free speech only pertains to government officials and we can be arrested for what we say here?

"Oh, that'll never happen." Yeah it won't happen until it does. What O'Connor said should SCARE EVERYONE and send up a red flag. And if that's not enough, what about that Taliban guy going to Yale? Our future Supreme Court judges are learning from Yale's example.

But it's good to know this isn't any big deal...

[Borges]

Uuuhm, it can't rule 'anyway it wants'. Appellate courts can either uphold a lower court's ruling or overturn it. There's always a specific law that is in question. Without judicial review we have no legal recourse to challenge an law...just mob rule. There's no flaw in our system. Marbury Vs Madison is the basis of Constitutional Law.

[freedomlover]

Better I guess than doin' the old Ginsburg sleepin' on the bench - but more dangerous.

[AndrewC]

'All Judicial Power' means the power to interpret the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution say "All Judicial power"? It does say "All legislative powers herein granted". Oh yeah, I forgot, the exclusive power to interpret, means the power to change meaning.

[VeniVidiVici]

but O'Connor did not indicate where she hopes to sit.

Hopefully on a tack.

[A CA Guy]

Retired judges often sit on cases where private parties pay rather than keep it in public court.

They can sit on cases perhaps involving millions in judgments.

She could be made a temporary appointment and so forth.

I though she wanted to care for a dying husband. Maybe he is on the way out already.