Posted on 05/21/2007 5:17:20 AM PDT by syriacus
In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this morning, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor continued her pet campaign of persuading Americans to stop chafing under the yoke of judicial supremacy. Convinced, for some odd reason, that "in many, if not most, high schools today, civics education is no longer required," Justice O'Connor plans to lend her name to a website that would instruct young people that they do not really govern themselves—judges do:
Indeed, when we got a Bill of Rights giving every citizen the right to due process of law, to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion and so on, the only way that can be enforced is to give courts the power to overturn actions by the legislative or executive branch that impinge on those freedoms. And that's how it has to be enforced.This might—just might—be a tolerable theory of the range of the judiciary's power, if it were accompanied by some account of how abuses of that power were to be dealt with by the other branches that are more representative of the people, and that have their own responsibilities for preserving the Constitution. But O'Connor rejects, root and branch, any understanding of the separation of powers that might invite palpable responses to judicial usurpation. (It is in fact doubtful whether she is capable of holding the two words "judicial" and "usurpation" in close proximity in her mind.)
As she has done on repeated occasions over the last couple of years, O'Connor conflates legitimate institutional responses to judicial misbehavior with "intimidation" of an illegitimate kind. She cites just two examples of "sanctions" recently proposed that went nowhere—and were so preordained to fail, one wonders what the former justice is worried about. The first is the ill-considered "Jail for Judges" amendment to the South Dakota constitution, a resounding failure at the polls. The second example is the fleeting mentions of impeachment of federal judges that followed Terri Schiavo's death, and the Supreme Court's recent invocations of foreign law. But no serious person thinks that a single case about which a sound criticism might be lodged, but which was decided in good faith with no sign of corruption, can constitute grounds for impeachment. Whether an entire career as unprincipled and abusive as Justice O'Connor's can present itself as a prima facie case for removal from office is a much more interesting question.
In a burst of generosity toward her fellow citizens, Justice O'Connor says, "by no means do I suggest that it's wrong to criticize courts for particular decisions." This, it seems, is the extent of the checks and balances that she is willing to tolerate where the federal judiciary is concerned. But as long as the rest of us are all talk and no action, we have surrendered some of the most important territory of self-government to the judges.
Amid all this chicken-littling about how "partisan attacks on judges" (in Chris Wallace's words) have never been worse, we also find this highly amusing case of Justice O'Connor revising her own history:
Now, when I was a youngster I do remember seeing on the highway out by the Lazy B Ranch [where O'Connor grew up] a big billboard saying "Impeach Earl Warren," and that was in the years when there were some cases like Miranda and some criminal cases, and people got all excited.Miranda v. Arizona, of course, was decided in 1966, when O'Connor was not a "youngster" living on her father's ranch, but a 36-year-old assistant attorney general of Arizona. And if she was remembering some earlier instance of such billboards appearing, perhaps soon after Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in 1954, she was already then a young graduate of Stanford Law School, married to John O'Connor, and living in Germany while he served in the armed forces.
As I get older, the temptation grows stronger refer to myself in my twenties and thirties as a "youngster," so maybe we can cut Justice O'Connor some slack on this one. But she was an active Republican and a serving public official in Arizona in the 1960s, and it would be interesting to know if she ever uttered a peep in those days in opposition to the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement that put up those famous billboards. Conveying the false impression that she was just a girl at the time is a convenient way of putting that all behind her.
The irony is that those freedoms are rendered meaningless if judges get to define what everything means and what the outcomes are. In the name of protecting those rights she would destroy them and transfer all power to the judges. Having the right to make your argument does not entitle you to win the argument. Nor does it entitle you to never be offended. She wants judges to go beyond making sure all play by the same rules. She wants them to decide who wins and who loses based on their own idea of who should win and who should lose, rather than based on the law as written by legislators elected by the people via those protected rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. A judge is not supposed to have that kind of power. Her style of protection is total control.
“I thought rights were God-given...”
Ssssh! Thinking weakens the team. Now, go back to your room.
Nowhere in the Consitution did the framers contemplate that in an unelected court would repose such power. They understood it was their intention to leave to Congress - the People's representatives - such authority for popular or unpopular decisions which could be reversed by a subsequent election.
Had they intended the Courts to rule the US, the framers would have said so explicitly. It is time for Congress to wrest back its power from the courts, regardless if that Congress is Republican or Democrat. The authority belongs to the People not to the court.
In Federalist 78 Hamilton wrote:
"The judiciary 'will always be the least dangerous' branch of government because it has the least capacity to 'annoy or injure' our constitutional rights."
Oops.
~ snip~
As she has done on repeated occasions over the last couple of years, O’Connor conflates legitimate institutional responses to judicial misbehavior with “intimidation” of an illegitimate kind
~snip~
My question is- does she really believe this? Has she examined any of the decision handed down, by say, the 9th Circuit? Does she truly not see there are judges acting like legislators?
High schools don’t teach civics? What?
How about grade schools?
Just last week, I spoke to my 12-year-old nephew who told me that he was studying for a civics test on...the entire federal court system.
The week before that, my 12-year-old godson told me that he was studying the entire federal court system in civics.
I think Justice O’Connor needs to get out more.
And along with that we the people need to have the power to burn judges at the stake when we disagree with the laws they pass by judicial action.
The former justice seems to be in a self-pity melt-down over the fact that there are Americans who dare to criticize the court. She is offended that children are not taught that judges are too important to have their decisions evaluated on their merit.
Judges are unelected and unaccountable and should remain that way, far above the opinion of the great unwashed masses.
Give me a break!
Her stupidity is awesome. She bemoans the “attacks” upon judicial decisions while remaining absolutely blind to how judicial activism has helped destroy the US court system and make judges public villians. Another reason I am so glad she’s gone from the court.
Sandra needs to fade away with all the ex-Washington elite.
I am ashamed to say that she is from Arizona.
That is an incredible comment for a Supreme Court justice to make. The Bill of Rights does NOT enumerate or give us our rights. Our rights are indeed given to us by our Creator. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government may NOT do to infringe upon our rights.
The fact that she, as well as most in congress, has that backwards explains why they are so willing to pass and support unconstitutional laws.
And then she has the arrogance to say that most of the people are ignorant of what the Constitution says and need education. Unbelieveable!
Nobody cares Sandy baby, you had your chance, and now your done.
Sit down and shut up.
The more she talks the more she irrational she sounds, like Carter.
Great point.
There is no court to appeal to, that's higher than the Supreme Court.
Is O'Connor implying that "previous Supreme Courts" are higher than current ones?
WALLACE: When one justice is replaced by another and suddenly the law of the land changes on an issue, can you understand why some people might come to think that the Supreme Court [#2] is less about principle than about politics?O'CONNOR: That's the concern if stare decisis is disregarded. Obviously, that is a concern.
Our legal system is based on that of Great Britain. We just celebrated Jamestown's 400th birthday.
And from my perspective, one of the most important things the settlers of Jamestown did was to import with them the British system of common law.
And under the common law, if an appellate court decides an issue of law, then that's binding on the lower courts [#1] unless and until that appellate decision is modified or changed.
It's called stare decisis, and that's just an important concept under our legal system.
Thanks for the information.
Yes. Nice post!!
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.