8mm
Posted on 06/02/2007 8:58:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Recent attacks on "activist judges" by legislative bodies could be putting the concept of an independent judiciary at risk, retired Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Friday. "These are appalling times," O'Connor told a crowd of 700 during a moderated discussion about her career at the University of Tulsa. "There is so much rancor and dislike going on." O'Connor asked the crowd if it heard of the attacks on so-called "godless, secular humanist, activist judges," and cited cases in several states where people attempted to introduce ballot measures that would toss judges in jail for making the wrong decisions or shorten their terms on the bench... She said an independent judiciary enables judges to resolve cases fairly, "and let the chips fall where they may," even if the legislative branch isn't happy with the outcome... O'Connor also discussed her recent role as a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that met to assess the current and prospective situation in Iraq and the surrounding region. The report called for a gradual troop pullout and more aggressive regional diplomacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
“Nowhere does the Constitution say anything about an “independent judiciary”. In fact it specifically gives Congress the authority to regulate it’s jurisdiction.”
Eureka! Maybe there’s hope! Due to the respect commanded by the early Supreme Court justices, the power of the supreme court expanded during the early 1800’s. So for example, people simply accepted the practice of the court under John Marshall reviewing the constitutionality of laws. If they can find some backbone, the conservatives in Congress should be able to force the activist bozos on the court to act with some restraint.
So, the courts can play in politics, but the politicians better stay away from the courts.
What is even more appalling, Sandy dear, is Judges who hold our Constitution and our rule of law in contempt.
Never mind. I just read post # 28.
Idiot lifetime appointed judges should be challenged and oft times stoned in the public square.
The Constitution created the courts, not the other way around. When judges violate the Constitution, it is the duty of the other branches to ignore them or resist them, as they too are sworn to defend the Constitution. However, since Eisenhower, spineless politicians have accepted unconstitutional rulings by the SC as the last, inviolable word. Eisenhower was a wimp. Patton or Mac Arthur would have made better presidents.
"...By 1972, 16 states with 41 percent of the nation's population had liberalized their abortion laws, and the Republican platform did not mention the subject. The next year the Supreme Court ripped the subject away from state legislatures. In 1976 the Republican platform protested the court's decision, recommended "continuance of the public dialogue on abortion" and endorsed a constitutional amendment "to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."
"...The 1980 platform was similar, but four years later and afterward, the party, while continuing to favor a constitutional amendment, advocated "legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections" -- no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process of law -- "apply to unborn children." So, the party has repeatedly endorsed a constitutional amendment it thinks is a redundancy.
"...The party asserts that one of America's most common surgical procedures is murder. So, last year perhaps a million women and their doctors committed murder. However much a person deplores abortion and embraces that legal logic, nobody believes that either the legislation or the constitutional amendment that Republican platforms have praised will be passed. Hence the sterility of today's abortion debate. And hence the inclination of some social conservatives to focus on limiting abortion by changing the culture, and their willingness to evaluate candidates by criteria unrelated to abortion...
PS: According to the Pew Poll at least 30% of social conservatives support Rudy Giuliani. He may not be our candidate, but the very fact that he garners this support suggests times are indeed changing.
The O’Connor appointment remains relevant, for she left a destructive legacy on the court from the standpoint of conservatives. For many years, she was the only justice most Americans could identify, and they did not know of her undermining of constitutional principles. Reagan did not do his homework there.
Supposedly, the new view is that Eisenhower was a behind-the-scenes micromanager but he wanted to project a “macromanger” image even though such terms had not yet been coined. I think Eisenhower was at heart a social liberal and was willing to spend too to make liberalism prosper. He was certainly in the “big government” mold. Even Robert Taft was a strong backer of public housing at that time.
What did Riggins actually say about her? Wasn’t he just complimenting her in an off-color way? Surely he didn’t know of her liberal views on the court.
This phoney old hag who would have American judicial decisions based upon those of foreign courts should shut her mouth and go back to her retirement.
She was a catastrophe on the court and acts like Jimmy Carter sniping at American opinion.
I thought that she had gone back to her ranch. I guess she misses the limelight.
The judiciary is not independent. They are selected for their affinity to the political positions of the persons who appoint them. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this is in some form of denial.
Therefore, judges should be limited by terms and elected. They should be forced to reveal their views, AND they should STILL be required to rule on the language of the law.
I swear this was posted a month ago?!?!
Every vile word tossed at the totalitarians in black robes is deserved and accurate. I’m disappointed that the days of tar and feathers for judges have passed. Bring back dueling, too. I also suspect that O’Conner would survive a Puritan dunking, get on her Marxist sickle and fly away.
O’Connor was also a Latter Day Goldwaterite.
Hair-raising too.
O'Connor has become the Jimmuh Carter of the SCOTUS. I have been half-heartedly following her comments since her retirement, and it is obvious that she really believes that she is far and above the "unwashed masses". I don't know whether she is only an elitist or showing the signs of dementia. In any case, she is a walking advertisement for the need to reign in the judiciary.
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.