[Congressman Billybob]

Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.

Lemme know what you think.

[mathluv]

What does it take to impeach a judge?

[george wythe]

I posted not-very-nice comments against O'Connor on previous threads, but I felt remorseful afterwards since all the reporting about her speech came from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper.

Is there any link to her whole speech? I would like to see her words in context before I get a voodoo doll, name it Sandra, and start sticking pins on it.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

The U.S. Supreme Court is going the way of the U.N. Security Council. The day is soon coming when it will be irrelevent.

[ladylib]

I hope Terry Schiavo never makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court given how some countries feel about euthanasia.

[Ff--150]

because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.

The judges are Honored therefore nobility; hence Justice O'Conner is more divine than the rest of us and above the laws. All these calls to impeach are so pitiful. [no sarcasm]

[Normally a Lurker]

Excellent artile BB. Lots of food for thought therein, albeit some appears to be poisoned food. Thanks so much for posting it.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Libertina]

Sandra Day O'Connor has been unleashed... what has gotten into her? These type of judges must be retired. Can pressure be brought to bear?

[Stopislamnow]

O'Conner should be brought up on sedition and treason charges.

[2timothy3.16]

I, like many I am sure, would like to read her whole speech, do you think you could either find it and put it up here or put up a link to it?

Second, as I understand the impeachment process, we must first get the House to investigate this and then take action. The Senate will then act as the court if, the House acting as a grand jury indites. If my understanding is correct, then a true transcript of her speech is absolutely necessary.

[StonyBurk]

If I am not mistaken Marbury v. Madison,5 US 137,174,1803
is also ignored by Justice O'Connor and company.The Oath
of Office suggested in Marbury (if still applicable) shames
this lawless Majority does it not?

[Sunshine Sister]

This is outrageous. Thanks for the post and the information. I would not expect to see this anywhere but here. Thank GOD for the Internet and FR!

[You Dirty Rats]

If there is any trend that makes me fear for our country more than the trend towards judicially tyranny, I have not yet heard of it.

Would Sandra Dee support an argument that SCOTUS itself must bow down to the World Court in The Hague?

Sad to see Sandra Dee using the Constitution as kindling for her dinner. Expensive dinner, I'd say.

I must say, though, I don't understand why anyone would run for Congress. You'll have a thousand times more people worked up over a kid receiving two cans of Pepsi in a school vending machine for the price of one than people who are concerned that Sandra Dee is using our Constitution to start the fire at her senior center beach blanket bingo party. "Congressman Armor, we don't care about the Constitution when thar's a whole lotta Pepsi consumin' goin' on out thar!"

Congressman Billybob, you promise to file impeachment papers against Sandra Dee and other Constitutional arsonists and you'll see campaign money flowing in like tourists in the Smokies fleeing bears!

I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!!

[Reactionary]

You're exactly right about this.

O'Connor and others have now taken to formulating law based upon international public opinion. Their view is that what is just is what is commonly held to be just.

I guess it was inevitable that cultural relativism would devolve into conventionalism and then blind adherence to the "opinions" of mankind. The authoritarian nature of this undertaking escapes dunderheads like O'Connor.

[lilylangtree]

Impeach the witch and all those that would violate their oath--bunch of dirty rotten no-good scum that feeds at the public trough for their living.

[fire_eye]

Justice O'Connor told her audience at the Southern Center, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Oh, good. I'm deeply gratified.

That means we can count on Ms. O'Connor to cheerfully go along with (*just* for insatance) American political subdivisions enacting Nuremberg laws when the Muslims take over Europe and install antisemitic governments there?

Right, Sandra? I mean, at that point, antisemitism in the Untied States would become a domestic issue requiring Your Dishonor's august and venerable opinion to be based in the opinions of international and foreign courts... Right, Sandra??

I'm with the person who said she should be tried for sedition and treason. At the very least, an attempt should be launched to impeach the witch. That might at least have somewhat of a "Chilling Effect"... and make sitting up there on the bench trying to internationalize the United States not quite so much fun any more

[tpaine]

Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.
Lemme know what you think.
1 -bb-

---

As I told you on the first thread, you are hyping the issue beyond reason.

The liberal judges on the USSC will be controled by our system of checks & balances between Fed & State power, ~if~ it is allowed to operate. Politically, this is not happening.

Demanding that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of unreasonable regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, --- is a violation of the lawyers oath to protect and defend, imo.. - Thus, it is part of the political problem.

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.

[Alberta's Child]

My simple opinion about this is that former Washington Redskins running back John Riggins must have been a very good judge of character.

[mrsmith]

Well, you laid it out pretty clearly.

I don't think any other country even has the concept of rights being retained by the citizenry.
It's much easier for the court to define our rights than to inquire what rights we have retained.

[Buggman]

Excellent article. I hope you don't mind if I post it on another forum with all appropriate credits and a link back to the original in place.