Sandra Day O'connor warns of US dictatorship

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

(If you go to this website, you there is a link to the audio transcript)

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html

Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship

RAW STORY
Published: March 10, 2006

Print This | Email This

Via NPR. Rush transcript by RAW STORY. Listen to the audio report here.

Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O’Connor’s speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.

Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Thanks for reminding me how much better off we are with this bitter woman off the Court. I guess 25 or ever how many years of thinking you are there to solve all the Nation's diificult problems makes a person a bit testy when they are criticized, particularly when the criticism is richly justified. Her view seems to be that whatever jduges do is beyond reproach, and the other Branches are just supposed to shut up and comply no matter what kind of extra-constitutional edict the Court issues. (Please, all the enlightened political "science" majors out there, spare me the lectures about how in our system the Court determines what the "Law" is.)

The simple facts are that the Constitution gives the Court a very limited role, that of decididng "cases and controversies." It is not even clear from the Constitution if the Court can declare acts of congress unconstitutitonal and hence void. It is clear that it is the Congress's role to make laws, and the Court's role to apply them. Therefore, when congress corrects an erroneous interpretation of the Court, it is simply doing its job, not encroaching. And the Constitution also gives congress clear authority to amend the jurisdiction of the Supreme and inferior Courts. These restrictions an dlimitations are why the Judicial Branch was called the "Least Dangerous Branch" in the Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, decades of judicial excess have turned it ihnto the Most Dangerous Branch. For Justices like O'Connor, seemingly nothing was beyond judicial power, including levying taxes.

Thank goodness she has been replaced by a man who seems to have a clearer and more mature appreciation of the judicial power.

 

[Pabst]

I can't help noticing how only three words of O'Connor's- "really, really angry"- appear in quotations. I just love the new school of journalistic reporting.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

(If you go to this website, you there is a link to the audio transcript)

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html

Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship

RAW STORY
Published: March 10, 2006

Print This | Email This

Via NPR. Rush transcript by RAW STORY. Listen to the audio report here.

Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O’Connor’s speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.

Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Pabst:

I can't help noticing how only three words of O'Connor's- "really, really angry"- appear in quotations. I just love the new school of journalistic reporting.

I don't see the problem. If those were her words whereas the remainder of the text was paraphrased for brevity, then I would think that the presentation is appropriate. Any comments on the content?

 

[maxpi]

In the eyes of Sandra Day she is supposed to be in charge!! She is the true representative of the people, don't you people get it? And far left Democrats, when they talk of checks and balances, are talking about Republican vs Democrat, not about the 3 branches of government... I am serious, I listened to Sen. Barbara Boxer ranting in her nice quiet reasonable sounding way, it was a rant nonetheless, and in her mind checks and balances is about Democrats stopping Republicans from doing anything... it is just all such ........... how can I accurately portray this........ bullshit! Yes it is bullshit, and lots of voters go along with it here in the people's republico of California. Nice place to live but you would not want to pay taxes here.

 

[Pabst]

The only available summation of O'Connor remarks is the one reported by Nina Totenberg in the example above. Useless eh? Do we know at all if O'Connor expressed, in context, any of those thoughts? We do not.

Quote from Thunderdog:

I don't see the problem. If those were her words whereas the remainder of the text was paraphrased for brevity, then I would think that the presentation is appropriate. Any comments on the content?

 

[sputdr]

You californians need to be freed from the weapons of tax destruction.

I advocate a military response to the follies of california.

Quote from maxpi:

In the eyes of Sandra Day she is supposed to be in charge!! She is the true representative of the people, don't you people get it? And far left Democrats, when they talk of checks and balances, are talking about Republican vs Democrat, not about the 3 branches of government... I am serious, I listened to Sen. Barbara Boxer ranting in her nice quiet reasonable sounding way, it was a rant nonetheless, and in her mind checks and balances is about Democrats stopping Republicans from doing anything... it is just all such ........... how can I accurately portray this........ bullshit! Yes it is bullshit, and lots of voters go along with it here in the people's republico of California. Nice place to live but you would not want to pay taxes here.

 

[Chood]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

. . . And the Constitution also gives congress clear authority to amend the jurisdiction of the Supreme and inferior Courts. These restrictions and limitations are why the Judicial Branch was called the "Least Dangerous Branch" in the Federalist Papers.

I am reassured. To think I was worried that a bothersome little court might interfere with --

1) Dick Cheney's right to place my life and property in jeopardy by battling our enemies at home and abroad. I mean, really, what's the use of a Declaration of War, voted by Congress, when you have a warrior of his talent calling the shots?

2) Al Gonzalez's listening in on those phone calls down the street. How the hell else is Cheney gonna know who the enemy is?

3) Tom DeLay and Bill Frist's power to step in as needed to resolve sticky family and privacy concerns involving life and death. And Bill Frist, God bless him, didn't even send Terry Schiavo's husband a bill for diagnosing her. What a guy.

 

[TheConMan]

There is indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy in existence. These are the individuals behind the push for a new world order and the neo-communists make good foot soldiers. We are the most advanced civilization in the history of mankind. Their goal is for complete command and control of this civilization. Then to leverage its assets to control the rest of humanity. Some individuals will laugh after reading what I have posted. These are the same individuals who laughed off Nixons conspiracy. Even after the day Nixon came on national Television and resigned, they do not believe there was a watergate. These are the neo-communist boot-licking foot-soldiers referenced above.







Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

(If you go to this website, you there is a link to the audio transcript)

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html

Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship

RAW STORY
Published: March 10, 2006

Print This | Email This

Via NPR. Rush transcript by RAW STORY. Listen to the audio report here.

Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O’Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O’Connor’s speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.

Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O’Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or governors, as she put it “really, really angry.” But, she continued, if we don’t make them mad some of the time we probably aren’t doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won’t be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation’s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O’Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don’t protect judicial independence, people do.

 

[Chood]

Quote from Chood:

I am reassured. To think I was worried that a bothersome little court might interfere with . . . Tom DeLay's and Bill Frist's power to step in as needed to resolve sticky family and privacy concerns involving life and death. And Bill Frist, God bless him, didn't even send Terry Schiavo's husband a bill for diagnosing her. What a guy.

In case my gratitude is underwhelming, let me add that it's a great comfort to know those congressional Republicans will be there for me if I face such a soul-trying problem in my family. They'll be there for you, too. It takes a community, truly.