Free Republic

WASHINGTON - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Thursday dismissed growing criticism about the Supreme Court's use of international law in its opinions, saying it makes sense for justices to look at foreign sources when a point of law is unclear. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, participated in a lively one-hour discussion at the National Archives with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. She said if there is no controlling U.S. precedent or the viewpoint of states is unsettled, "of course we look at foreign law." "This is much ado about nothing," she said in response to a question by moderator...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on Thursday dismissed growing criticism about the Supreme Court's use of international law in its opinions, saying it makes sense for justices to look at foreign sources when a point of law is unclear. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, participated in a lively one-hour discussion at the National Archives with Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer. She said if there is no controlling U.S. precedent or the viewpoint of states is unsettled, "of course we look at foreign law." "This is much ado about nothing," she said in response to a question by...

Over the past several decades, we have gotten used to judges being above the law, so it was perhaps inevitable that we would now be asked to get used to the idea that judges are above criticism. In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, where a Florida judge ignored Florida law and Congressional subpoenas, and where federal judges ignored Congressional legislation duly signed by the President, some people dared to suggest that judges had overstepped the bounds. Immediately there has been a firestorm of reaction by those who think it is just fine to have judges make social policy,...

Let's talk about the arguments that will be made, court cases cited, the sound bites, and votes in Congress. Let's talk about what's going to happen. Chief Justice Rehnquist isn't going to be around forever, and I'd bet a beer that this is his last court session. Then the president gets to nominate a replacement. That replacement is someone who votes just like Rehnquist did when it comes to religious freedom issues. The court remains much the same. It's late in the president's second term when Sandra Day O'Connor and one other justice decide that they'd rather have their replacements...

To resolve any concern that I would block pro-life judicial nominees, take a look at my record. I have consistently opposed any litmus test. I have backed that up by voting to confirm pro-life nominees including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy. I led the fight to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas, which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992. I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor. The current controversy was artificially created by incorrect reporting. I never "warned" the president on...

In the current issue of the left-leaning The American Prospect, Lisbeth B. Schorr has an article entitled "The O'Connor Project." The title alludes to Justice Sandra O'Connor's opinion last summer upholding the use of racial preferences in university admissions, which she concluded by saying that she hoped the academic performance of young African Americans would improve enough so that, in 25 years, this kind of discrimination would no longer be called for. And so, asks Schorr — director of the Project on Effective Interventions at Harvard University — what is to be done in order to make O'Connor's hope come...

Some Republicans now say that affirmative action is here to stay, so the best we can do is to "contain" it. That means limiting affirmative action to blacks and American Indians. (Many Republicans have long felt that way, but some are now actually talking containment.) Containment is surrender. This ain’t the Cold War; this is the war for the Constitution. It’s also a low-intensity (increasingly, high-intensity) race war. But the containment strategy is worse than a straightforward surrender. For while GOP operatives intend all along to surrender for what they think is a fair price, they seek to deceive...

Courting International Law by Sandy Schulz Published 11/04/2003 Lost in the hoopla over the Supreme Court's decisions last term on affirmative action and gay rights is the development of a disturbing new legal trend, one hinted at by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a speech last week. Increasingly, it seems, the Court is relying on international law and opinion as the basis for domestic legal decisions. For an institution that puts so much stock in precedence, this move is, well, unprecedented. Worse, it spells potential trouble down the road. In several of its highest-profile cases, the Court looked for guidance...

I once worked in government. On my first day, I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution. I thought I knew what that meant. Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism. A foreigner might then ask: What exactly is your Constitution? Now we know the answer. The Constitution is whatever Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says it is. On any given Monday.

<p>The California jurist who may replace Justice O'Connor.</p> <p>Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:01 a.m.</p> <p>Only a handful of people know if a Supreme Court vacancy will be announced later today. The guessing in Washington is that Chief Justice William Rehnquist is now less likely to retire, given the White House's strongly expressed view that it doesn't want a vacancy. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor marches to her own drummer, and recent events have led several court observers to speculate she may step down this week.</p>

With the end of the Supreme Court's term, it is not clear that the country's long struggle against the pernicious practice of one-person rule has been nearly as successful as our folklore might suggest. Even as we commemorate our rejection of one supreme leader in 1776, lawyers and politicians are studying the latest social and legal decisions mandated by another: Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Because of her position as the perennial "swing vote" on a divided Supreme Court, O'Connor continues to dictate massive changes for the nation based on her own highly evolving views and priorities. This term alone,...

Be afraid, be very very afraid. Last night on Fox News Channel on Brit Hume's Special Report, Brian Wilson reported on the comparison between the new TV show that mimics the Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court as they both ruled on cases dealing with "virtual child pornography". The TV version voted 7 to 2 in the same direction that the actual Supreme Court voted (6 to 3). It would have been 7 to 2 in the actual had Sandra Day O'Connor taken a little more of her medication that morning. In Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (a pornography...