Now she tells us

Washington Times ^ | November 25, 2006 | By Paul Greenberg

[JohnHuang2]

The latest critic of a Supreme Court ruling turns out to be the justice who supplied the key vote in its favor: Sandra Day O'Connor.

Addressing a legal conference in Texas, the former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had some second thoughts about her opinion in Minnesota v. White back in 2002, which struck down that state's restrictions on judges' expressing their political views in campaigns for the bench.

The case was decided 5 to 4, and Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion made all the difference. Renowned in her time on the court as its swing vote, she's now swinging back. What do you suppose has changed her mind, or at least softened her opinion?

Well, the former associate justice has been on a crusade since she left the court. She's concerned about threats to the independence of the American judiciary, as all of us should be. As usual, the threat comes from those who believe we the fickle people should be able to repeal unpopular decisions at will, or recall judges who deliver unpopular opinions, and in general subject fundamental law to the transient moods of ever shifting public opinion.

[SCHROLL]

when a judge becomes an advocate, the judge ceases to be an impartial arbitor.

[Pontiac]

She's concerned about threats to the independence of the American judiciary, as all of us should be. As usual, the threat comes from those who believe we the fickle people should be able to repeal unpopular decisions at will, or recall judges who deliver unpopular opinions, and in general subject fundamental law to the transient moods of ever shifting public opinion.

When Courts hand down decisions like Kelo, why should not the people move to repeal them or not move to have judges with so little regard for the US Constitution and the rights of the common man removed from office?

Decisions such as Kelo are abhorrent to the Constitution and should not stand. Judges who make such rulings do not belong on the Supreme Court and should be removed.

Appointed judges serve for life terms on condition of good behavior. NO Supreme Court judge has ever been impeached and removed from office. This in no way infers that it is not among the powers of the congress.

It is only the fact that Supreme Court Justices primarily act only as a single body and that they have a code of silence about their deliberations that no judge has ever been impeached.

[knarf]

I haven't read the article, but from the few paragraphs ... I guess she is acting more like an American citizen now than a SC Goddess?

Would to God America would wake up and take a look at what the traitors of many colors have done to attempt the destruction of America.

I pray it's not too late .. and I'm pretty good at bull$h!tt!ng myself into all kinds of things .. but my fear for our nation of liberty and freedom is way too real and deep.

[beyond the sea]

..... but my fear for our nation of liberty and freedom is way too real and deep.

I hear you!

[sergeantdave]

"She's concerned about threats to the independence of the American judiciary, as all of us should be. "

The founders never intended that five unelected black-robed dictators should run the country.

An elected congress was given the power to check unelected judges by controlling the money to the judiciary, limiting what areas judges may rule on and impeaching judges who abuse their power.

Congress has the ultimate power as it should, not judges.

[ikka]

She's concerned about threats to the independence of the American judiciary, as all of us should be.

I don't get this... where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers is this concept expressed? Instead, the Founders were quite clear that impeachment, conviction, and removal of judges should occur on an as-needed basis, and that impeachment itself could happen for any reason Congress deemed as appropriate.

[BamaAndy]

In mosty states, judges are elected form the plaintiff BAR--trial lawyers. They take care of each other depsite evidence. We have to force a better system because there's no such thing as fairness when trial lawyers are protecting the bank accounts of other trial lawwyers.

[PA-RIVER]

Sandra was busy making law for the last 25 years.

Supremes are given the honor to rule on law, not make new laws. That honor is based on trust. She pissed that trust away.

Her "best" law manufacturing stunt was condoning racial preferances for college applicants, thereby refusing to hold up antidiscrimination laws. Reading her justification for that stunt, she had no law or contitutional foundation to back her up. It was raw politcs.

She ignored all laws that forbid racial discrimination.
She admited that such laws should be enforced .... someday ..... but not on her watch.

Sandra, you were appointed to enforce law, not write it.

You failed big time. Just shut up and go away.

[freeangel]

"just shut up and go away"

You are right! She had a chance to follow the Constitution and she decided that she was too important to do just that. Who cares what the hell she pontificates on now. She had her chance and screwed the United States citizens.