Posted on 03/12/2006 1:09:09 PM PST by NinoFan
O'Connor May Sit on Bench Again
By Tony Mauro Legal Times March 13, 2006
The next stage of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's public life began taking shape last week: a combination of speaking out, receiving accolades and even, she hinted, sitting as a judge again. In a talk Thursday at Georgetown University Law Center, she demurred when it was suggested she could be more candid now that she's no longer a justice: "I've retired, but I'm still a federal judge." Retired justices can sit by designation on any federal court, but O'Connor did not indicate where she hopes to sit.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
She could be making retirement more relevant and interesting for her husband. But evidently she's married to the law and doesn't plan on getting a divorce soon.
Marriage doesn't seem to mean the same thing to the liberal intellectual elite as it does to a lot of people in this country.
Unless maybe he doesn't want her around, hah.
Leni
Well, here is what Hamiltion has to say on the subject in Federalist 81.
The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion.
The first paragraph outlines the worry about a supreme court. The second paragraph begins the argument which will deny that worry. Needless to say, Hamilton was wrong. It has happened.
The next Jimmy Carter...an ex public 'servant' who just won't go quietly away...
That issue was decided over 200 years ago. Nobody in 2006 is going to listen. Deal with it!
The only bench this old crank needs to sit on is a park bench, feeding pigeons.
Marbury v. Madison is logical where branches of government are equal. You are looking at it as invalidating a law of Congress. But what it is really saying is "We won't enforce it for thus and such reason." You can't make the courts enforce laws.
What everyone overlooks is what MvM says about the Presidency. C.J. Marshall explicitly recognized that he could not order President Jefferson, a political opponent, to do anything in the case that would not be ignored. Unfortunately, the Executive has lost the ability to do just that and become just a rubber stamp enforcement arm of the courts. See my previous post (#48).
why not? every other government official gets this perk.
no however, retired judges can and do take special appointments and cases. IN THEORY, she could take on a special appointment for a drawn out case.
I think she should just stay aways from the courts, she has done enough damage.
Not without a presidential appointment I hope! And President Bush is NOT giving back her resignation!
But you took it out of context and manifest has a precise meaning, namely, "Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious." The context makes it manifest. "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. "
Limited also means limited even to the Judiciary. They have no right to imagine words into the "manifest tenor of the Constitution"
If she still wants to work, Bush make her ambassador to some quiet little country like Equador or Luxembourg.
There's no doubt this old woman needs the spotlight. Hopefully it will be turned off before she curtsies (?)
on the stage once more.Never one to quibble except on the important issues....lead us not into the abyss with this one. She's been there, done that.
I suggest Antarctica. That way she gets a whole continent but can do little diplomatic damage.
Retired SCOTUS judges often sit on an occasional Court of Appeals panel. They are appointed to do so by, IIRC, the Chief Justice. When Thurgood Marshall resigned from the Supreme Court and returned to New York, he sat on a few Second Circuit panels. I expect Roberts will appoint her to some 9th Circuit panels.
Ahh, old judges just seem to hang on and on and on.
No it isn't.
Show me where Judicial Review exists IN THE CONSTITUTION OR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Those are the legal documents.
There were a lot of ideas in the early Republic that were eventually thrown out or rejected.
I think the Constitution should matter - why don't you? And why don't these judges?
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.