Sandra Day O'connor warns of US dictatorship

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from ellokn:

I do not know how old you are, but when O'Conner was appointed by Regan (she came to his attention after a intellectually conservative, and well-thought-out article in "Foreign Policy." but conservatives everywhere were happy with her appointment to the bench. Remember, it was her swing vote that put , Bush into the Whitehouse.

You seem to have a lot of anger with the Judiciary.

You seem to have an issue with the idea of a female on the bench. "Bitter woman" now repalced by "man ......with a clearer (sic) and more mature..."

These were her exact words, and spoken like a true Conservative:

"Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

Well, you're right. I do have a lot of anger at people who have turned the judiciary from a forum for settling actual cases into an undemocratic device for enacting liberal social polciy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.

Justice O'Connor was certainly not the worst justice to ever serve, but she seemed to lack a coherent view of constitutional law. Instead, she seemed to think of herself as a quasi-legislator, put on the bench to enact her version of wise and enlightened social policy.

Her fears about "interference" with an independent judiciary somehow turning the country into a dictatorship are absurd. A far greater fear in my mind is an imperial, untouchable judiciary, issuing edicts with no basis in the constitution. The intereference she is so afraid of seems to consist of principled criticism that the Court has abandoned any pretense that its ruling need a constitutional foundation. We're not talking aobut jduges being arrested or shot. Threats by congressmen to impeach out of control judges do not threaten our system of government. In fact, impeachment is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Here is where I think you are wrong, on the basis of partisan politics, not on judicial principle.

The threats to judges for impeachment are not for high crimes or misdemeanors, but on the basis of the opinions being rendered by judges.

You don't agree with those opinion, opinions that by law and Constitutionality they are allowed to render, so your ilk whines and cries like a mad mob of control freaks.

There is a system of checks and balances, i.e. you can muster up enough votes for a Constitutional amendment.

This coercive implied threat by the right wing against judges on the basis of politics, not law or legal principle is thuggish, and representative of all that is repugnant in the regressive party.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Well, you're right. I do have a lot of anger at people who have turned the judiciary from a forum for settling actual cases into an undemocratic device for enacting liberal social polciy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.

Justice O'Connor was certainly not the worst justice to ever serve, but she seemed to lack a coherent view of constitutional law. Instead, she seemed to think of herself as a quasi-legislator, put on the bench to enact her version of wise and enlightened social policy.

Her fears about "interference" with an independent judiciary somehow turning the country into a dictatorship are absurd. A far greater fear in my mind is an imperial, untouchable judiciary, issuing edicts with no basis in the constitution. The intereference she is so afraid of seems to consist of principled criticism that the Court has abandoned any pretense that its ruling need a constitutional foundation. We're not talking aobut jduges being arrested or shot. Threats by congressmen to impeach out of control judges do not threaten our system of government. In fact, impeachment is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

 

[jem]

zzz I will laugh when some day the creator of your talking points realizes that the republicans took the page out of the libs play book and crushed them with a politicized judiciary.

Who will be the first liberal that wakes up realizes they are lost the game and will lose it going forward and starts requesting good qualifed judges who within the guidelines of the law.

Sure go ahead act like the right is a a bunch of sore losers. The funny thing is, that if the new justices vote according to plan, the left just got outplayed at the own game.


By the way I am not gloating, I am not that pleased at all.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The right is of course a bunch of sore losers, even though they have control of all branches of government.

Just as each sect of a religion believes they, and they alone have the correct interpretation of the Bible or other scripture, so too each political faction thinks they have the right and only correct interpretation of the Constitution.

The framers understood this problem, due to human nature, political nature of human beings, and the limits of the English language.

So the created a form of government that includes many checks and balances.

Yes, the right wing loaded bench will likely interpret the Constitution according to their political views, and yes the left will not like it any more than the right wingers have.

We have seen prohibition in the past put into effect, and then revoked via Constitutional amendments, so the thought that perhaps the same thing would happen with abortion, etc. is not a new concept.

Just as during prohibition people still got drunk, so too abortions will continue if the current court acts in a regressive manner.

The elite will be able to afford them, the poor will suffer though, and the state will take control of a woman's body, which is of course something the right wing wants to regress back to.....

Quote from jem:

zzz I will laugh when some day the creator of your talking points realizes that the republicans took the page out of the libs play book and crushed them with a politicized judiciary.

Who will be the first liberal that wakes up realizes they are lost the game and will lose it going forward and starts requesting good qualifed judges who within the guidelines of the law.

Sure go ahead act like the right is a a bunch of sore losers. The funny thing is, that if the new justices vote according to plan, the left just got outplayed at the own game.


By the way I am not gloating, I am not that pleased at all.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from 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.

There is no evidence, as of yet, that O'Connor's replacement is any more or less likely to legislate from the bench.

Your view of the "simple fact" that the Constitution only permits the Judiciary to decide "cases and controversies," suggests that the Court cannot make law. But, the right to decide cases and controversies is the express right to make the "law of the case," for litigants who request a judicial remedy.

I will accept your position, arguendo, that the Constitution may not have originally been intended to permit the U.S. Supreme Court to void an Act of Congress. But, the contra is that the Court may absolutely void any law that comes before it, as applied to the litigants themselves, under the inherent power of the Judiciary to do equity (fair play and substantial justice).

So, even though the Court may not be Constitutionally able to declare laws invalid, it is nevertheless capable of instructing inferior courts to refuse to enforce the laws, and thereby render such laws unenforceable.

And, while you may argue that Congress has the power to make exceptions and regulate the Court's jurisdiction, I would argue that the power does not extend to completely disable the court from making case law.

Thus, the distinction between declaring laws void and declaring them unenforceable, becomes mere semantics -- the result is the same, either way.

Justice O'Connor did a fine job, and I think you're way out of your league to suggest that you know better. I have problems with many of her decisions, and I'm certain I will have problems with Alito's. But, I wouldn't suggest that any of the justices are anything close to a "complete moron," and I think you do yourself a disservice to suggest otherwise.

 

[jem]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The right is of course a bunch of sore losers, even though they have control of all branches of government.

Just as each sect of a religion believes they, and they alone have the correct interpretation of the Bible or other scripture, so too each political faction thinks they have the right and only correct interpretation of the Constitution.

The framers understood this problem, due to human nature, political nature of human beings, and the limits of the English language.

So the created a form of government that includes many checks and balances.

Yes, the right wing loaded bench will likely interpret the Constitution according to their political views, and yes the left will not like it any more than the right wingers have.

We have seen prohibition in the past put into effect, and then revoked via Constitutional amendments, so the thought that perhaps the same thing would happen with abortion, etc. is not a new concept.

Just as during prohibition people still got drunk, so too abortions will continue if the current court acts in a regressive manner.

The elite will be able to afford them, the poor will suffer though, and the state will take control of a woman's body, which is of course something the right wing wants to regress back to.....

Taking control of womens body is such a distortion. The baby comes out one way or another. It is simply protecting the life of an innocent. Partial birth abortion can not even be seen as taking control of a womens body. It is simply homicide.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

A "baby" does come out upon birth.

A fetus aborted, is not a "baby" coming out.....

Partial birth is such a stupid term, sort of like "partial" pregnancy.....

Quote from jem:

Taking control of womens body is such a distortion. The baby comes out one way or another. It is simply protecting the life of an innocent. Partial birth abortion can not even be seen as taking control of a womens body. It is simply homicide.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A "baby" does come out upon birth.

A fetus aborted, is not a "baby" coming out.....

Partial birth is such a stupid term, sort of like "partial" pregnancy.....

So if a drunk driver kills a woman who is 9 months pregnant, ithere would be no grounds to charge him for killing the fetus, right? Or if the parents (one or both) decide they don't want a female baby, it's OK to abort, right? After all, it is their choice, right?

I know this is a highly charged issue and it is not my intention to say you're wrong and I'm right, but how do you reconclie what science says is true? I think that is why you are seeing more and more people change their views. Back when Roe v Wade was issued, we didn't have the information we have now. Premies are surviving at ever earlier stages in pregnancy. People are begining the see that a fetus IS a human being.

The one thing that really bothers me is that if I say I think abortion is wrong, I'm immediately branded as a right wing, religous zealot. I'm not anything close. But I do believe that this issue needs to be addressed from a logical view of what is a human being.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I am not going to argue with science.

If doctors can harvest a fetus, turn it into a baby, and keep that "baby" alive apart from the mother...I would call that birth.

However, a fetus is not a baby, just as seed is not a tree.

Plant a seed in the ground, let it germinate for a short time frame, then dig it up....is it a tree?

The point is that there is a level of development where it is a seed, where it is a fetus, and then it grows to a point where it is a tree, where it is a baby.

So, as long as a woman desires not to a grow a fetus into a baby, to have a baby, to care for a baby.....and as long as the state is willing to fully care for the entire lifespan of that harvested fetus that has a better than 50/50 chance of becoming a baby, that's where I say we draw the line.....and let the woman abort her fetus into the state's baby.

Before that time where a fetus is viable with high likelihood to grow to a healthy baby outside of the woman's womb, it is her right, not the state's right to decide whether to continue to grow the baby.

To force a woman to grow a fetus into a baby is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

For if it is Constitutionally mandatory for a woman to have to grow a fetus into a baby, what stops the state for impregnating women, forcing them to make babies?

If the state deems it necessary to produce more "white" babies, do then then justify the right to "rape" a woman, forcing her to grow that fertilized egg into a "white" baby? Or black, or brown, or yellow, etc.

What if genetics gets to the point that the state says:

"We need more citizens with math abilities" and technology has advanced to the point that the state has the ability to produce babies at will with genetic developments and conditions they desire.

The bottom line is this:

Should the state have power over a woman's reproductive system?

I say no.....

Quote from Arnie:

So if a drunk driver kills a woman who is 9 months pregnant, ithere would be no grounds to charge him for killing the fetus, right? Or if the parents (one or both) decide they don't want a female baby, it's OK to abort, right? After all, it is their choice, right?

I know this is a highly charged issue and it is not my intention to say you're wrong and I'm right, but how do you reconclie what science says is true? I think that is why you are seeing more and more people change their views. Back when Roe v Wade was issued, we didn't have the information we have now. Premies are surviving at ever earlier stages in pregnancy. People are begining the see that a fetus IS a human being.

The one thing that really bothers me is that if I say I think abortion is wrong, I'm immediately branded as a right wing, religous zealot. I'm not anything close. But I do believe that this issue needs to be addressed from a logical view of what is a human being.

 

[jem]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A "baby" does come out upon birth.

A fetus aborted, is not a "baby" coming out.....

Partial birth is such a stupid term, sort of like "partial" pregnancy.....

I am not sure if we agree or not. When the baby is part way out and the doctor kills the baby -- isn't that a homicide. What has that got to do with the womens reproductive system at that stage. The baby is part way out.

----

Regarding the other part of your argument. Feel free to substitute the word "baby" with the word fetus. The point still stands. The fetus comes out of the women at some point.

The state is not taking control of the womens reproductive system the fetus does. You are advocating going in and killing the fetus and then removing the dead being. The fetus still comes out of the women. If a state says, do not kill the fetus it is not taking control of the womens body. It is just protecting life. A women could still choose to end pregancy prematurely. That can be done without necesarily kiling the fetus. In fact it happens frequently.

I am currently just arguing against a b.s euphemism. Let us say what it is. It is killing life for the comfort or well being of another life. The question is - should a state sanction it.