O'Connor May Sit on Bench Again

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

[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.

[Tzimisce]

...no one around here is listening. I think lefties know this all to well (which is why O'Connor said it.)

[Tzimisce]

Talking about "Judicial Review" and it's implications on American Government, not the particulars of the Marbury vs. Madison case...

[AndrewC]

I think the Constitution should matter - why don't you?

Are you nuts? I am arguing against Judicial Review as practiced now.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Talking about "Judicial Review" and it's implications on American Government, not the particulars of the Marbury vs. Madison case...

You would do well to review the particulars. Equal powers means the following: Congress does not have to pass laws to the liking of the courts or the President. (They can override the President's veto. Judicial review simply means that the Supreme Court is not inferior to Congress and does not have to enforce laws with which it disagrees. But you would find that any encroachment on Congress would be easily offset by the President if, like Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson recognized, the President doesn't have to enforce court orders and judge-made laws. The President doesn't have to enforce laws made by courts or Congress if there is not the will to impeach him. The system is robust enough to sustain even this until voters settle it at the next election. But the Congress and President have become too complacent and defaulted to SCOTUS since the 1850s. That is not how it was designed.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I am arguing against Judicial Review as practiced now.

See posts 48, 49 & 64.

[leprechaun9]

I hope it is on a park bench in Siberia!

[Borges]

No it isn't.

Great argument. Anyway without MvM the Constitution has no effect over state law. It is referred to as the basis of Constitutional Law in the first year of any law school.

[Tzimisce]

Okay, so you have no problem with the court reading itself all kinds of new powers (and it's the only branch that can just up and decide to do that - laws can be vetoed by the President and Congress can be voted out of office and changed...) Gotcha.

It bothers me though.....

[indi_girl447]

NOOOO!!!!

='(

haha

[Tzimisce]

SHOW ME WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. You want to bring in outside arguments? Great - the left is all in favor of using international law to decide US court cases.

I don't care what the Federalist papers say CAUSE THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

It's nice to know you don't care about this cause Liberals do. But that's okay, lefty judges will be smiling when they come and take your freedom......

[Borges]

I do care about it and have come to the conclusion that the system we have is the best possible. Interpreting a text is an inherently subjective business. The Federalist Papers are the primary source of explication about the intentions of the Framers. They are the one external text that can legitimately be used to interpret the USC. You still didn't represent an alternative to the system we currently have. Your freedoms stand a much better chance of being taken away if people have no legal recourse to challenge an Unconstitutional law. BTW: Writing in CAPS isn't a substitute for an argument.

[AndrewC]

Yep!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

My point is exactly this: that the court can make any ruling it wants and it doesn't mean diddley without a willing executive to use his police power to carry it out. As President Andrew Jackson (may have) said: "[Chief Justice] Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The court in fact had no way to enforce it (Worcester v Georgia, 1832). Something went wrong between that and Dred Scott when the President and Congress became obsequious to the Supreme Court and the courts became above the law. I am saying you are mistaken and misdirected if you think it was Marbury v Madison. The court is just as bad sometimes when it upholds a law (e.g. McCain-Feingold).