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 ...
Well, I don’t have to tell you, we expected that sumbitch to light up like a Christmas tree and flat-out walk the dog. But it didn’t. Turns out the new orange shag carpet I’d put on the floor was so thick it was keeping the cool “barefoot” gas pedal I’d installed from going all the way down.
I haven't been up long...coffee, more coffee!!! I don't suppose there is an explanation for the above posts?? Think I'll go back to bed.
There, FRixed that.
I've actually worked for Federal (appointed) judges. I can tell you that politics never entered into any case I worked on, or saw.
The elected (primarily state) judges, on the other hand, were explicitly political - and, in my experience, nowhere near the caliber of the appointed judges. Their handle on the law (especially the rules of evidence) have been more tenuous (one in particular has his own "It might be important" exception; another tries to go 50/50 - if he ruled against you last time, he'll rule for you this time.).
The best reforms of the judiciary we could make would be to increase the salary to make it competitive with partnership at a large law firm. Keep the lifetime appointment, but be more willing to impeach for bad behavior or explicit politicization.
. They should be forced to reveal their views,
Oh, heck no. Then they'll have to recuse themselves whenever a case comes up with which they might disagree. (It's unethical for a judge to reveal beforehand how he might rule.)
?they should STILL be required to rule on the language of the law.
Agreed. Policy should not be the domain of the courts. That is why, for instance, in the recent employment discrimination case where the Supreme Court ruled the 300-day rule was pretty hard and fast, they got it right. I agree with Justice Ginsberg that this, policy-wise, is a bad idea because discrimination is often incremental and not noticed until some straw broke the camel's back. But that decision is not the Court's to make, but Congress's. Alito et al. were right on the law.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If judges intentionally make political rulings, then they must expect a political response.
You're basically correct. He had had a few too many at some dinner and told her "Sandy baby, you're too tight. You need to loosen up." I was merely using his off-color compliment as an off-color insult.
With regard to her tenure as a SCOTUS justice, she was a buffoon. The manner in which left wing political activists in black robes regularly thwart the will of the people in this country infuriates me. Modern judges receive far more respect than they deserve.
PS: That was sarcasm, if you didn't know it."
It was also the truth, and well put.
8mmMauser; AEMILIUS PAULUS; ALPAPilot; aruanan; BenLurkin; BykrBayb; blam; Condor51; ca centered; Eagles6; EagleUSA; EGPWS; EternalVigilance; endthematrix; F.J. Mitchell; FlyVet; freekitty; Godwin1; glorgau; gorush; greyfoxx39; Hugin; haroldeveryman; hinckley buzzard; JasonC; Jaysun; JCEccles; Joe Boucher; Judges Gone Wild; jimfree; jude24; KarlInOhio; KJC1; khnyny; LdSentinal; MrsEmmaPeel; Obie Wan; PGalt; quantim; RightWhale; RJL; rhinohunter; Sam Ketcham; SierraWasp; Smedley; Stayfree; Syncro; sergeantdave; shrinkermd; starbase; Theodore R.; Tzimisce; tflabo; VR-21; Wheee The People; wagglebee; xzins; ZULU; zendari
As long as the judiciary insists on overstepping its proper bounds and making political decisions, it shouldn’t be so G**D***** “independent”.
This is a republic, or at least a democracy, not a judicial oligarchy, or even an aristocracy of our ‘betters’, the ‘elite’.
Ms. O'Connor needs to take a chill pill and settle back down. Whether she likes it being said or not our judicial is system is way out of control and peopple aren't going to shut up about it just becuase she wants them to.
Apparently she seems to think that an "Independent Judiciary" is one that's in bed with the Democrats and the New World Order. This is not what our founding fathers had intended. It was the intention of our founding fathers that the U.S. Constitution be the Supreme law of the land and NOT laws of other nations.
Before O'Connor goes to spewing off her big mouth she needs to take a look at the history books and find out what the founding fathers had in mind for this country. Maybe, she'd be much better off living in places like Cuba or China or menuzula where she'd be much more happier.
Regards......
Sandy of course can live where she damn well pleases, so long as the natives can stomach her arrogant presence.
The USA would be better off today if she had chosen some place else to reside, long before her appointment to the US Supreme Court and long before she was in a position to pervert the words of our Constitution.
She can do the USA a favor right now by talking all of our living ex-Presidents into joining her in a vow of silence and solitude.
If the judiciary had been intended to be "independent royalty" beyond reproach or accountability, there never would have been provisions for judges' removals in the Constitution.
Think about that.
Actually, in a free society, he is free to express that sentiment as an individual.
He can not do the same as a servant of American citizens, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States..
She thinks American Judges are like the royalty in Europe, should be beyond criticism and accountability.
Actually, O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion and tore the majority justices (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) new asses in it. She was on the correct side in the Kelo decision.
Those nasty old legislative bodies. Off with their HEADS!
I would bet money that they are political and that it could be statistically proven.
Simply place a “liberal/conservative” label on each justice. Place a “liberal/conservative” rating on each ruling.
You will discover that the affinity of liberal judges for liberal rulings will defy randomness by giant steps and not baby steps.
What’s really apalling is the Judiciary’s attacks on the Constitution. Reagen appointed this B!tch and she turned around and stabbed him in the back. She should crawl back under her rock and STFU!
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.