O'Connor Dismisses Rumors That She Plans to Retire From Court

The New York Times ^ | July 6, 2003 | JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

[Sabertooth]

Correction: "RUMORED" and here at or on FR, mostly by Todd!

Before I'm nit-picked, and by Bobby Novak in one of his recent hysterical columns."

onyx, I just don't get comments like this.

Why are so many people so focused on another, as though he's the biggest problem in the country?

The comments by O'Connor and especially Breyer in the article at the top are far more dangerous than anything any of us could conceive of doing.

[onyx]

Why not read my post #3.......
To: sarcasm

SC Justice's have no business appearing on political talk shows.

Was Sandra promoting her new book, or merely there to counterbalance Breyer (if so that's a laugh of its own) or to lend 'balance' to an otherwise leftie-weighted sham of David Brinkey's old show?

I'm hurling right along with you!


3 posted on 07/06/2003 12:33 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)

---

And my post #25.......
To: Theodore R.

Why impeach or single-out Sandra? She didn't vote alone.


25 posted on 07/06/2003 3:09 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)

---

A little myob might be in order..... :-)

[maxwellp]

"They are both going to stay as long as health permits". This is very wrong. There should be mandatory retirement for every governmental official at age 65. I new a woman who, at age 99, was remarkably clear in her head while being physically disabled. On the other hand, I know a man who is 68 and is remarkably unclear in his head. He's acting so screwy everyone who knows him is commenting on it. The American people cannot trust their country to people who may, or may not, be thinking straight in their dotage. Make them retire at 65.

[Sabertooth]

A little myob might be in order..... :-)

If it's on a thread, it's not private business. This schoolyard groupthink is way out of hand. I think you're above that.

[onyx]

I am, and heretofore I thought the same of you. Please don't prove me wrong. Todd is a big boy. I've seen you come to his defense a few times recently. Todd will have to learn to not twist rumors into facts.

[Consort]

It's finally dawning on people that 5 justices (a majority of the Supreme Court) determine (interpret) what the Constitution means — not the Founding Fathers, or the Congress, or the President, or any of us. That's the way it is.

[nygoose]

It looks to me like this whole thing is being set up to cap it all off with a very negative Second Amendment ruling.

[unspun]

Queen of The Wimp Bloc, compassless virtual dictator of the Supreme Court.

[OldFriend]

Perhaps they're waiting for Stevens to fall over.

[Clinging Bitterly]

It's true I heard it. She also idicated she has the view that international treaties can trump the Constitution. Wouldn't bother me to see her retire.

[Sabertooth]

Todd is a big boy. I've seen you come to his defense a few times recently. Todd will have to learn to not twist rumors into facts.

I've set the record straight when things were said about another poster that weren't true. Whatever his faults may be, plenty of his detractors are more than willing to twist facts, leap to conclusions, and spread rumors about him, apparently thinking that they can get away with it because he's not winning popularity polls. There is one such rumor that I've corrected a half a dozen times, both on threads and via Freepmail, with links and evidence. Doesn't seem to matter, though, the same honking, clucking crowd keeps spreading it, despite not having anything with which to back up their claim.

Does TLBSHOW always get it right? No. So what? People should deal with the errors, not descend into playground taunts.

What's with the so-played-out "Todd" thing? I never see it used but that the poster is trying to insinuate a sense of their own superiority. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any issue, it's just an air of condescension. Yeah, I think you're better than that.

There are plenty of posters in this forum who can not bring themselves to confront the possibility that President Bush is mortal, and that not every ill-advised thing he does is part of some brilliant, long term plan. They twist and contort reality to conform to the needs of the personality cult. Any poster who questions the demigodhood of President Bush risks being targeted as a disruptor, a Bush-basher, or a Bush-hater, hell-bent on spreading division.

The very rationales and methods once used by the Clintonistas are rife on Free Republic, and the fact that President Bush is a more decent and honorable man than his predecessor doesn't excuse the shameless behavior of many of the would-be defenders on his behalf.

It would be a good thing for them to experience, if even for a moment, a pang of embarassment over their actions.

Consider what President Bush might think on seeing some of these threads. He might look at those who are critical of him and his policies (I am one of frequently one of them), and think that we're misinformed, silly, or even stupid. So be it.

However, I can't imagine he'd look at the tenor of many of the posts in his defense, without wincing... frequently

[OldPossum]

I have this sneaking suspicion that if Bush appoints another O'Connor (if she retires) and another David Souter (if Rehnquist retires)--and he might well do that--then Justices Scalia and Thomas might just retire, feeling that all is lost.

And it would be.

[1Old Pro]

She doesn't look good and much of what she says is non-sensical. She really should retire.

[1Old Pro]

I find the idea that she has actually authored any of her opinions this year just laughable.

Me too. She seems dazed and confused. She has just enough smarts left to understand that she wants to keep her incredible power.