Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WOW! SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR DECRIES REPUBLICAN ATTACKS ON COURTS!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:35 AM
Original message
WOW! SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR DECRIES REPUBLICAN ATTACKS ON COURTS!
O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts
by Nina Totenberg

Morning Edition, March 10, 2006 Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed Thursday that she's not absent from judicial issues. During a speech in Washington, she said Republican leaders' attacks on the courts threaten the constitutional freedoms of Americans.

AUDIO AT NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=52...

and this from KOS:

BREAKING: Sandra Day O'Connor Speaks out and unbelievably says
by philinmaine
Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 06:25:12 AM PDT

I don't have all the story but Justice O'Connor has BLASTED the Republicans for their partisan attacks on the courts. She stated (paraphrase) that partisan attacks on the courts for political purposes must stop. She included references to cutting a court's budget, intimidation, and poisioning the public against the judicial system. Wow! Then she said something off the charts...


She closed by saying (paraphrase) that it takes a long time to become a dictatorship but better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end. That's Right..Sandra Day O'Connor used the word dictatorship. Not some 'nutty blogger' not some 'left wing lezzy' but the most venerated, praised, widely respected, Justice O'Connor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/10/82512/7603
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sandy has a long way to go in my book after installing the boy king in
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 07:40 AM by converted_democrat
the first place, but this does win her many points in my book..

edited for my many spelling issues..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bostonbabs Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
43. I give her CREDIT for speaking the TRUTH...NOW
she used the word DICTATORSHIP for the love of GOD ! She has an unimpeachable ( no pun intended) reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #43
68. It isn't truth until she admits responsibility.
And the treasonous bitch is a long way from that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
73. A LIAR doesn't have to lie ALL THE TIME to still be a LIAR.
A murderer doesn't have to murder all the time to be a murderer. A thief doesn't have to engage in thievery all the time to be a thief. Thieves, murderers, liars, and enablers of fascism, absent contrition and dedication to abandonment of such behavior remain thieves, murderers, liars, and enablers of fascism. She gets no credit whatsoever, any more than I'd credit a murderer for not murdering one of his or her neighbors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #73
114. She stopped stabbing me in the back!
I wuv her! :loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #114
119. Prezactly.
(Sometimes I'm reminded of 'abused spouse syndrome' when folks switcheroo their villain/hero opinions.) :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. If she feels that strongly, she shoulda stayed on the court
But then again I don't know what pressures may have been brought to bear on her to leave. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Some of those "pressures" might, in part, explain her finally
seeing light in regards our Dear Dictator...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Apparently her husband is in poor health and she is
75-76 years old. After serving for 25 years on the Supreme Court, I would probably think about retirement if I were her. I wish she had spoken out about her feelings a few years ago, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dulcinea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Her husband has Alzheimer's. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
83. I wonder how she will feel when her party outlaws stem cell research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alpizzy Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. I thought she took a Chancellorship....
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 08:15 AM by alpizzy
only retired from the Court but still working.
Can anyone confirm?


On Edit:

Yes, she is still working, not sitting by her husband.
Article claims she wants to be very active in her new role.
She could've stayed on the court. Screw her.

http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5233
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
46. The Chancellor of W&M is basically an honorary position
you give a couple of speeches, wear a nice robe to graduation and get a nice house on campus for when you visit. W&M has a long tradition of appointing retired or quasi-retired people to the job, which was originally designed as the College's representative at the Court of St. James, which isn't so important any more. Look at the last two chancellors, for instance, Kissinger and Thatcher. Do we really think that Lady Thatcher spent a lot of time there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
56. So she used her husband!
She used her husband to get sympathy for Bush to appoint someone on the bench. Ugh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
55. Not if she knew what would come
She could've stayed on there and helped save this country for future generations. For all I care she can stay away. She helped all of this and now she is speaking out only after millions of lives and at the cost of our civil liberties. So excuse me while I really don't give a damn what she has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
81. My theory has always been...
that she wanted to retire under a Republican President. When George W. Bush came along, she decided she'd wait and see if she could retire under a Democratic one. But I think in the end personal considerations overcame her desire to retire under, you know, someone sane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. way too little, and way way too late
just go away
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
31. OR tell all and show us and help us defeat the FASCISTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Sorry.
To late. She is still a piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
80. AMEN - she put Bush on the Bench
So she should chastise herself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
137. John, the fascist ,Yoo
was her law clerk as Yoo was Clarence Thomas' Yoo might have been her law clerk at the time of her infamous '00 decision from hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. If she is speaking out to this degree
one can only presume she is absolutely tormented by her single handed vote to install *.

If so I feel as sorry for her as I do for our nation.

Just from the point of anyone trained in ethical expression of Constitutional law, to see our checks and balances nuked, a pRes believing he is above the law and a sycophantic legislature agreeing with him must be making her stomach turn to blurt out that sort of statement.

Woh wouldn't want to be her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. I'm still reeling from Benedict Arnold's treason
and am not yet up to contemplating Sandra Day O'Connor's even worse betrayal of our nation.

:cry:

I'm all for women's equality; but I had hoped the fair sex would leave top honors for treason in our hands.

Move over, Benedict, and make room for Sandra.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Arnold's treason pales by comparison
It compromised some colonists and totally bummed out General Washington. It didn't trash our country.

Funny I knew one of Arnold's descendants. She was really sweet and talented and a dead head. : )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. What a kind response.
I think you are right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
38. i think this is why rehnquist
hung on until he was ready to drop. didn't want to see who would replace him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. Incredible.
It's too bad that she left the court and handed it over to bu$h cronies and sympathizers. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
9. too late sandy
way too fucking late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. I understand your sentiment.
She enabled the dictatorship with her vote in Bush v. Gore. Can we give her just a little credit? Better late than never? :shrug:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. you can if you want
I won't ever forgive her. Her actions set in motion the destruction of this country. Her words mean nothing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Fair enough.
Ultimately, I share your righteous anger.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
57. She was the ultimate "partisan" in 2000.
Who cares what she thinks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
70. Why? Has she taken responsibility?
Or is she still pretending she can't see the American blood dripping from her hands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
47. I agree and usually favor more moderate assessments. But she directly
influenced what is happening now. It wasn't even 2 degrees of separation.

When she dies, she will have to face her direct role in sabotaging our Democracy and I won't ignore it and history certainly won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #47
64. All that's quite true enough -- HOWEVER,
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 11:55 AM by RazzleDazzle
would you rather have her pointing out the (implied) error of her ways, and the danger to our Constitution that the DeLays of the world represent, or would you rather have her either keeping quiet or defending herself against the truth?

I say if she can step up to the plate and make a difference, no matter HOW small, then good on her. Does it make up for her role earlier? I don't know and I don't care. I only care what good she can do now.

And I willingly praise and thank her for that current good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Wow.
She's right, of course, and we all know it, but it's amazing to read that Sandra Day O'Connor said it!

Dictatorship





-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
34. I LOVE your Dem graphic! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
87. Thanks, but I can't take credit for it.
I "borrowed" it from some creative Dem. around here. It's even more embarrassing that I can't remember who. Still, I love it and use it often. It's so appropriate.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #87
98. It's Oliver ???? and his Democratic store
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
11. GO TO HELL O'CONNOR!!!
THOUSANDS of Americans died because of your singular vote to install the dictater!

So FUCK OFF and have a shitty retirement! May you NEVER REST! :mad:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Her comment on dictatorship
"We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration until a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
58. Doesn't that make her a hypocrite after Bush v Gore
and she voted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
65. It might make her someone who WOKE THE FUCK UP in the
intervening years.

Sheesh. Talk about a tough crowd.

See my post above for the rest of my comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisa58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. She should have thought of that in December of 2000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crankie Avalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Unbelievable...why do these types only ever wise up...
...as soon as they're no longer in a position to do anything about it? :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
67. Bullshit. She was in NO position to DO or even SAY anthing before
now she's free from her earlier restraints and can speak up. And has, rather quickly at that after leaving her position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Has she repudiated Bush v. Gore? No, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #71
82. I wonder how You would have voted?
In a close election, with your party a few votes away from the presidency, would you tend to lean toward your constituents? I'll bet you would. I disagree with the supreme courts ruling, but it wasn't so completely unreasonable. It was very close and Gore did nothing to help himself. We have forgotten just how badly Gore fucked up, and want to blame it all on the court. I blame Gore himself. He never should have let it even get that close. ("I'm my own man" - unemployed)

My guess is that if O'Connor could go back in time, she would vote the other way. Not necessarily on ideological terms, but on what's best for the country. I think she knows that helping put these clowns in power was a big mistake. She had no idea just how bad they would end up being; no one did. But that was not her intent. She probably thought she was helping bring back the first Bush administration, which wasn't all that dangerous, just heartless (i.e. republican).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Who were her "constituents"?
She's a Supreme Court Justice. Since when do they have "constituents"? What a crock of shit. Eff her and eff anyone who defends her vote on 12/12/00.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AverageJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. You are operating from a false premise
Supreme Court justices have no constituents, per se. They represent all of the people and their job is to interpret the Constitution. This is body is designed to be apolitical as a balance to the legislative and executive branches which are highly political.

The Bush-Gore decision broke with precedent and repudiated the longtime "conservative" position that states rights should take precedence over federal mandates. The right wing justices who handed Bush the presidency had their cake and ate it, too, however. They indicated that their interpretation of the law only applied to this case and should not serve as precedent for future decisions. In other words, they said, "We think the Bush camp's argument holds no water, but since he's a republican, we'll side with him. We want to make it clear, though, that we'd never decide this way for a Democrat."

All of the justices who put Bush in the White House were criminally derelict in their duty. I can't forgive them for this.

However, I am glad that O'Connor is speaking out now. Let's see if she keeps it up and see what happens next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #91
103. Good analysis
I agree with your analysis of the Courts decision regarding the election of 2000. I don't agree with the decision they came up with, but given the closeness of the election, and the political, and public pressure placed upon them, I can understand how they came up with it. Basically, the election was a draw, and it got thrown into the Supreme Court, where if I'm not mistaken, there is a majority of republicans. I say that in part because by becoming a justice, one does not lose any rights, like the right to vote or associate with whomever they want to. So, yes, in some respects, they do have constituents. Not ones that they are beholden to, but ones who's interests they look out for. It's the same with liberal justices.

While O'Connor may have known she was acting against her parties previous stance on issues of states rights, I don't think there was a precedent for them to go on, so it basically came down to a 9 person vote, and Gore did nothing to appeal to moderates. If the shoe had been on the other foot, I doubt anyone here would have scorned the court or any justices who voted with 'us.' Gore lost that election by being such a lousy candidate, even if Florida is a political insane asylum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #88
99. I have no idea who the Shining Path is, but I'll take that as an insult.
Furthermore, I expect a Justice on the Supreme Court to vote on law, not their political party. Read up on the Bush v.Gore decision, and you'll see just how unconstitutional that really was. I'm astonished that anyone thinks that is okay or to be expected that someone on SCOTUS vote along party lines. Why do you think they get lifetime appointments - they're supposed to be above politics.

And, O'Connor should have realized what Bush was when she cast her vote. WE SURE AS HELL DID!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #99
105. Shining Path = extremism
They are a revolutionary Maoist group in Peru. I didn't really mean that as an insult, nor do I want to insult you personally. I did want to compare DU extremism with extremism anywhere. I am a moderate, and proud to be one. Remember Buddha says the middle path is the way (cue to sitar music...)

O'Connor is a moderate too, and I'll defend her (overall career) compared with just about anyone. I really admire her. Still, I can disagree with individual rulings, and this is definitely one. I think the issue was too important to say 'the country needs to move on' which was essentially the courts decision. But there was no precedent for this case, so the door was open for personal prejudice. Justices are just people, and shouldn't be expected to be some sort of judicial saint. This was a case of 'all things being equal, who do I want?' If the court had been majority democrat, and a close election gave them the right to choose the president, they would have given the election to Gore, and nobody here would have said boo about it. Seems to me that the animosity toward O'Connor is a result of her being the swing vote, so she gets the blame. While I agree that this mis-administration is perhaps the worst in U.S. history, O'Connor had no way of knowing they would be like this. Sure, I hated * even before 2000, but I had no idea that he would be this toxic (or even 1/10th this toxic - my god, they make Reagan look good by comparison). If you did, then I admire your sixth sense. Either that, or you read Partnership for a New American Century and believed them. I guess we all should have read it and paid attention, especially Sandy.

But for that I am willing to forgive her. I blame my mom; she lives in Florida and voted for a chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #88
131. Her ONLY "constituent" is The Constitution.
you wrote: "Just because you're on the Supreme Court, you don't stop being a citizen, with political affiliations and all of that." o contrare!

A Supreme Court Justice serves NO ONE. They serve to uphold and defend The Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Read Justice Ginbergs dissent of Bush v. Gore-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

<snip> The Court assumes that time will not permit orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. Ante, at 12. But no one has doubted the good faith and diligence with which Florida election officials, attorneys for all sides of this controversy, and the courts of law have performed their duties. Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Courts conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Courts own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

I dissent.

<snip>

your attitude that "well, she's a Republican serving her constituency, what would you do?" argument is appalling.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #84
106. I love the bunny!
I am bunny-impaired. I didn't know they slept like that! My catties crack me up when they do that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
109. You believe I would trash the constitution of this country
for a political party? Because you would?

I would not.

That decision was attacked by every constitutional scholar in the nation. That decision said ITSELF that it could not be used as precedent...it was that extraordinary.

I would NOT have destroyed the constitution to steal an election. And I DO know how I would have voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #82
122. You are very kind, sir.
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 11:23 PM by susanna
Not that I agree with your summation, but nicely said.

NOTE: This is a response to post 82, SquireJons: "I wonder how You would have voted?", not to the one directly above me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
133. WTF?
You think it excusable or understandable if a judge follows their personal politics rather than the LAW?? :wtf:

Bush v. Gore is a mockery of justice and there is NO EXCUSE for that travesty or anyone who caused it. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. I think y'all need pitchforks
...and maybe a few burning torches for the full effect. You already have the ugly mob.

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say and I stand by my comments. So, what everyone who responded to my post seems to be saying is that a strict interpretation of the law (what law do you refer to? there is nothing in the constitution about recounts) would have sent the election back to Florida, controlled by Jeb Bush. Sorry, but I can't see how that would have changed anything. And I earnestly believe that if democrats controlled Florida, and the election came down to a few votes from that state, and it went to the supreme court, and the court decided to give the election to a democrat... no one here would say anything bad about the decision. So much for constitutional principles. I may be wrong on this, but if I am, please say here that you would have supported having a republican president under those circumstances - on principle. I doubt I'll beleive you, because that's not human nature, but I'd still like to hear it.

WTF is right. WTF are you all so hot and bothered about regarding Sandra O'Connor? Her overall legacy is of tolerance and moderation, one that most americans are be quite proud of. And now she's sticking it to the neocons. Sure, that vote sucked, for many reasons. But I will never accept that as her legacy.

Y'all just want to burn a witch.



"She turned me into a Newt Gingrich... I got better"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #67
79. Oh, she had the poll position on December 12, 2000, when she
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:35 PM by Bunny
could have changed her vote. But she didn't - she crowned the Boy King. Eff her.

"...NO position to DO or even SAY anything...", my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Higans Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #79
102. The vote was not who to elect, but weather or not to let the recount
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 06:46 PM by Higans
proceed. Bunny I see your point. I feel that there should have been a re-vote in Florida. The SC decided to halt the recount effectively appointing King George. I never did figure out why they ordered the recount to stop. I see your point that she voted along party lines. personally I would have waited for the results of the recount. That would seem the constitutional thing to do. it's nice that she is saying now that our democracy is in trouble, and I hope that her words still carry some weight, but I worry that it is a case of too little too late.

Edited to remove a period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peggy Day Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #102
115. I agree with Higans and Bunny
Being a good Democrat or just a good person, I want to forgive.
I just can't because of all the life lost. A re-vote wouldn't have been that bad. There was ballot confusion too. Now I don't trust the Supreme Court, and have no forgiving thoughts about O'Connor no matter what she says.


One Tribe
One Love
Humans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Higans Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #115
124. well said

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
18. better late then never. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
59. Tell that to all those who have died and their families
I'd love you to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
19. I wish she hadn't left
but any kick to this administration's nuts is welcomed by me.
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
23. Her protest would have been effective while she was on the bench.
Now the neocons will just swift-boat her and the RW media tools will play along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #23
62. She couldn't have said any of that from the bench
Get real. There are restrictions about how judges and justices can behave -- SOME Of the justices haven't done so well, it's true, but any who criticized like this couldn't have gotten away with not conforming to judicial standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
89. You get real. She helped put the sociopath in the White House!
The vote was 5-4.

I have no sympathy for Sandy. The blood is on Sandy's hands too. Our nation is a fucking shadow of what it was 5 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
26. Yeah? 5-4, O'Connor. 5-4. That's how long a dictatorship takes
5-4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
27. does she have daughters, does she have granddaughters?
guess what Sandy, they are about to lose the right to control their bodies thanks to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
28. Hey Sandy, you heard it quack like a duck, didn't you?
Finally, I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGirl7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
29. I see Sandra is now playing the part of Lady MacBeth
Full of guilt. Took long enough to come to your senses...but its a little too late Sandra, you should of came to that conclusion before you gave the office of the president to *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
30. Had she made these comments while on the bench
the Cons would have put her into impeachment proceedings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
32. My head is exploding - no I am f**king crying right now
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 08:30 AM by stop the bleeding
Memo to Sandra only 9 people's votes counted for preznit in 2000 - need I say more.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


on edit: I feel like my guts have been ripped out


on second edit: I have lived in FLORIDA since 1996 - yes 2000 Florida - AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Fuck!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
33. She should have left while the Big Dawg still had time to replace
her. But she must have been filled with too much hatred to to let him replace her. SDO'C should STFU as far as her whining goes; she was part of the problem in installing the neocons and now we're all going to have to live with the religious nutcases on the bench for ages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #33
60. Speaking of which someone here at DU posted an article
of her about the time she retired of her saying she wanted to retire in a republican administration to give them the spot. So she doesn't give a damn at all about democracy. Just her controlled version of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Exactly. She was overheard saying "oh NO!' when Gore pulled
ahead of Bush in FL. She installed the POS and left her spot on the bench during his reign for an unrepentant fascist. Screw her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
35. Hmmph... Thanks for NOTHING... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
36. Turn Coating IN OFFICE would have invited the JFK solution,it still could!
Run Sandra, Ruuuuunnnnn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
37. RESIDENTS in Florida - How about counting OUR votes?????? - F**K!!!!
see post # 32 for feelings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
39. Sounds like she's warming up for a book deal (EOM)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
40. She Should ROT IN HELL!!!!
Dictatorship Sandy? Remember that little decision you made in '00, you know, Bush v Gore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
41. Fuck her and her fascist Administration
She blatantly disregarded Law and Precedent with her Decision in Bush* v Gore. Now she says she doesn't like what's going on.. Fuck her and the horse she rode in on. She gets the ultimate blame for all this shit. It was her vote that created it all. Anytime a Supreme Court orders the vote counting to stop before all the votes have been counted they are derelict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cybildisobedience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
42. This is a blatant attempt to burnish her image
I remember reading that, in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, she was mortified by the anger directed at her and she hired a p.r. firm to restore her image. Pretty soon, you started seeing glowing profiles of her, her book came out, and the revisionist history was in full force when she stepped down from the Supreme Court.
Now, that she has nothing to lose and everything to gain, she is suddenly discovering her outrage at the abuses of power this administration committed.
She disgusts me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
44. Way too little. Way too late. Who is she kidding at this point, trying to
recapture some respect from those she helped to screw?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
45. Um, she started the problem by appointing the Dauphin as
president.

She has absolutely no fucking room to talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
48. Too bad she didn't say this from the bench...
Too late lady, too damn late...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fleabert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
49. THEN WHY THE EFF DID YOU RETIRE?
a few more years would not have killed her, most likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
50. Tragically late, she's already reset her image to Neville Chamberlain nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
51. Transcript available at Raw Story:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
52. tragic for nation she didn't at least stay on bench--installing dimson
should have caused her to stay, once she realized what a dangerous moron he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
53. She's just a part of this as the others!
She can fuck off!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
54. She should NOT have retired.
I can't respect her at this point. She knows what she has done by handing this regime another court seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
61. I've met Sandra Day O'Connor
she spoke at my law school in 2002. I actually asked her about Bush v. Gore (much to the horror of my professors) and she admitted it was a mistake.

Not that I've forgiven her, nor do I intend to any time soon.

But regardless of how we feel about her, having her speak out against BushCo can only help us. We don't have to like the messenger to benefit from the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. thanks for sharing that.
I agree with your comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
110. Thanks for posting that, huskerlaw. To the horror of your professors??
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 08:43 PM by Hissyspit
As a college professor, that's the subject I would have WANTED my students to bring raise. What exactly did you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #110
129. I don't remember exactly, but
it was something like, "Justice O'Connor, I'm taking a class on federalism and we recently discussed Bush v. Gore in the context of states'rights. Most of the class discussion focused on how the decision did not fit with many members of the Court's typical stance on states' rights...yours included. How do you explain the apparent inconsistency?"

She didn't really answer my question, but she did admit that it was inconsistent and kept going back to it being a one-time decision...that it didn't set precedence. At a luncheon later, which I didn't attend, so this is second-hand, she stated something to the affect of having made a mistake or wishing she hadn't decided the way she did. I don't know if she meant that she would have voted with the minority or if she meant her reasoning would have been different.

As for the professors being horrified...this was 2002, it was the big elephant in the room. Everyone wanted to ask it, but at the same time, there are certain rules of decorum when you're dealing with Supreme Court justices...particularly in a law school setting. Most of them knew my politics and had heard me call the case "absolute shit," among other things...more than once. So when I stood up to ask the question they were understandably nervous. As it turns out, they all agreed that my question was respectful and academic, so they had no problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. Well, good for you. "Decorum" is often used as an excuse to simply
control people's behavior, suppress important speech, and keep issues which need to be dealt with from being dealt with. Ironically, the "one-time decision/no precedent" crap is a similar kind of logic - this is a lousy decision but because we say it is a one-time decision you can't say it's a lousy decision because it won't produce precedent, even though it will produce precedent because we made the decision, despite the fact that we said it shouldn't produce precedent because, well, it's a one-time decision because it might be a lousy decision so we better only do it one time...?????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
66. That treasonous bitch said WHAT???
Got religion? Feeling the heat of Hell warming her toes?

Did she say one word that took responsibility for causing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
72. Hey, Sandy, are you enjoying your retirement?
After all, that was the reason you chose Bush, wasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
138. Someone on Attytood reminded us about the time that the arch fell off the
Constitution building and almost hit O'Connor and said it was on C-Span. A while back I quickly looked up a link, I think it was on Bradblog about this incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
74. SHUT. UP. JUST. SHUT. UP.
Go play golf. Go away. You were the Head Traitor, you stupid cow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
75. Ahh, reminds me of an old Broadway tune:

Look at me, I'm Sandra Day, retiring on Supreme Court pay
Won't stop the crime till it's way past the time, I can't, I'm Sandra Day.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
76. 'Oh, don't blame me, even though I helped with the problem.'
If she is really sincere, she would be screaming and demanding that her Corporate Republican MSM give her air-time to inform the American people about this threat. She could also enlist her contacts to rise up and challenge the Banana Republican Dictatorship every chance they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
77. Go eff yourself Sandy.
You installed that asshole in the Oval Office, I don't want to hear your crocodile tears now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
78. Too many uncompromising posts
Come on people, many of you sound as bad and unreasonable as the fundies. What ever happened to respect for moderates? It is absolutely false to cast O'Connor in the same light as say Thomas or Scalia or Delay. They are our enemies, not Ms. O'Connor.

Sure, I disagree with many of her rulings, especially the recount one. But I also agree with many of her rulings; the majority in fact. She's a moderate and that is indisputable. Have we hardened so much that if we disagree with any aspect of a public person, it's ok to demonize them? If so, then I'm outa here. Screeching and wailing will gain us nothing but scorn.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. It seems very likely to me that she withstood intense pressure from the hard right wing for almost her entire tenure on the Supreme Court. The fact that she even got there is remarkable, and she did much to safe guard our freedoms while there.

The fact that she came out so publicly to criticize the right wing of her own party is a testament of her independence and courage. While Lieberman kisses neocon ass, and the Democratic Party leadership disintegrates into a minstrel show (Dean vs Polesi, etc.) I find it increasingly reassuring that there are middle of the road people in important positions. Unfortunately, their time seems to be passing. If we keep down this road, civil strife is not unimaginable. And I think that was an unstated part of O'Connor's message at Georgetown yesterday.

I know that the f$%!ing neocon fundies want an all out civil (not just cultural) war, but I had hoped for better from self described progressives. If we adopt an 'all or nothing' attitude, guess what end of the stick we are going to get? (hint: wear gloves)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. I don't think that asshole that she installed has been real
"compromising". What are we supposed to do? Say: thank you sir may I have another? No more of that crap. She ruined her image by casting her vote, and her regrets now ring pretty hollow after all her "boy" has unleashed on our country.

Compromise, my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. good post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #78
107. I'm with you - good post
The hatred in the posts bothers me. Yes, the woman made mistakes, particularly in 2000, but who could have forseen what a monster the "man" installed would turn out to be? Some people on here say they knew - I don't know how they could have. I thought he was just a harmless ass, although at that time I wasn't much into politics.

Bush vs Gore was a partisan decision, and should never have been made, but it's doubtful that she knew the damage that would be caused by that decision. One thing though - she COULD have stayed on the court until * was gone - I find that harder to forgive than the original decision, but who knows what type of pressure she was under? These people are so incredibly evil that I put NOTHING past them.

I am happy if she's speaking out now. A LOT of repukes are speaking out now. I think in their wildest dreams they could not have imagined what a nightmare this administration would turn out to be, unfortunately, they don't get to do it over. The only thing they CAN do is speak out now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #78
125. Exactly. Many in here sound like sandbox juveniles . . .
.

I say hats off to former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Rare is it when any SCOTUS justice speaks out after retirement. Very rare. How refreshing is it when we are able to hear the thoughts and feelings about serving on the SCOTUS bench by a justice recently retired!

I am taken aback at Justice O'Connor's strong and direct language as well as her insightful candor.

Unfortunately, there's no audio (or video) recording of Justice O'Connor's lecture but NPR's Nina Totenberg was in attendance at the Georgetown University lecture and reported about it, quoting Justice O'Connor. For those who haven't heard what NPR's Nina Totenberg reported that former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said while at Georgetown University, here's a transcript of it:



NPR's Morning Edition, Legal Affairs, correspondent, Nina Totenberg, attended a Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., lecture given by former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Totenberg reports the following:

OConnor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts


    "In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, OConnor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. OConnor 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 dont make them mad some of the time we probably arent doing our jobs as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we wont be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nations 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 OConnor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions dont protect judicial independence, people do.

    "And then she took aim at former House GOP leader Tom DeLay. She didnt name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case. This, said OConnor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written. Not, said OConnor, as the congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said OConnor, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.

    "It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesnt help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didnt name him, but it was Texas senator John Cornyn who made that statement, after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judges home. OConnor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms, recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with.

    "I, said OConnor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, OConnor said 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, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

    Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington."

(I have not used quotation marks except where I am positive Totenberg is quoting O'Connor; however, Totenberg may be quoting O'Connor elsewhere in her report. -- TaleWgnDg)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=52...
(as visited Saturday, March 11, 2006)

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ME&showDate=10-M...
(MicrosoftMediaPlayer, 3:17 minutes, OConnor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts, NPR, Morning Edition, Friday, March 10, 2006, Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs, correspondent)

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ME&showDate=10-M... (RealPlayer, 3:17 minutes, OConnor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts, NPR, Morning Edition, Friday, March 10, 2006, Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs, correspondent

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #78
126. Well said, Squire
Yes, we're all pissed about the recount vote, and we have every right to be. But the point that Squire has made about not knowing just how bad Jr. would be is a valid one. I had no idea he would be this bad. Yes, I thought he was an idiot, but I didn't know he would surround himself with the biggest bunch of loons ever to weasel their way into politics and help them trample the constitution. And I don't think O'Connor knew it either. I think that was a pretty big shock to about everybody. It doesn't make her vote in 2000 right, but it does add some much needed perspective.

Bottom line is this is a big deal, and it's a big win for those of us worried about a gradual (or not so gradual) slide into fascism. Let her speak now that she can. Who knows what else she'll say? And I guaran-fucking-tee you that Sandra Day O'Connor's words will do more for the anti-Bush cause than a bunch of liberal democrats bitching (mostly to each other) on an internet message board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebelry Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #78
127. Thank you...
The virulence of this post has been difficult (and disheartening) to read through - I get why so many are angry at her, I really do, but I also know that if we want the message to get through - that we are in danger of a dictatorship and descending into fascism, it's going take moderate voices Like Sandra Day O'Connor for the more conservative/moderate parts of our country to hear and begin to accept it. Like it or not, she is well thought of in many circles, even if she's not well thought of by most of DU.

So I welcome her speaking out. It doesn't hurt the cause at this point and there's no going back and changing what already has been done.

Reb



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. IA, if she honestly thought it was the law when she did the
Bush v. Gore decision, she had to go with it. We can disagree but the court is supposed to be following the law, not politics. That would be why she might oppose unconstitutional parts of the Patriot Act, even though Bush signed them, for instance.

It is a nation under the rule of law and sad so many people don't even get that. They talk as if the court is just another legislature (when they go on about how it is "unelected" one realizes that's how they look at it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
90. boo-hoo. she might get gunned down and now she cares. cow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
92. Too eff-ing little, too eff-ing late, Sandra.
:puke:

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nightflurry Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
93. This just in
Hidenburg decries Nazi attacks on courts!

(Yeah I know, but sometime Nazi comparisons are just too hard to pass up)

But seriously.. if she thought the Republicans were attacking the courts then WHY THE FUCK DID SHE LEAVE THE SCOTUS? I understand that she couldn't speak so politically before because justices are supposed to be non-partisan, but she could've stayed in and voted her (new?) conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
94. LIke go jump in the lake already lady
The pompous ass sits on the effing court for years, helps rule all this crap in and even is complicit in helping to install the chimp in the first place. After all that she has helped preside over she wants to talk about it? Some brain-washed individuals have no stinking clue. Like, too bad and too late lady, your bus is gone and there isn't anymore coming
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
95. Thanks for this!
:kick:and :thumbsup:!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedstDem Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
96. F*ck-- Are All Republicans Hypocrites ????
Oh Never Mind, Dumb Question...........

Rot In Hell With Your Co-Conspirators Beyotch !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angryxyouth Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
97. First they came for the Ex-Supreme Court Justices, But I was not a........
Hey Sandra, The voters didn't put him in office. You did. Thanks a lot!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
100. And oilman Bush says we're addicted to oil
Somehow, O'Connor's protestations over a trend that she helped to foster are somewhat lacking in persuasiveness to my ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
101. go Sandra- KNR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
104. So... she helps the neocons steal the WH, then she's surprised that
they have no respect for our system of government?

Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
108. A day late and dollar fucking short
No, yes it's wonderful she's speaking out NOW. Now that she has no more power to wield to stop it from happening. She's concerned! Booyah. Anyooo-maybe this is the downfall of society and not REALITY TV. Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
111. good for her
:thumbsup: still mad about bush v gore but will
praise her for this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
112. Thanks for nothing, Sandie-baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
113. Hers is a strong, credible voice opposing the Bush agenda!
Soon enough, the rethugs will attempt to undermine her credibility. For now, she says something that has been needed. The election is past. This is the present, and she is one person who is talking about THE DICTATOR! Where is the Media coverage on this? I spent some time googling and could find only the short NPR paragraph. Boost her, don't take her down. As a former member of SCOTUS, now she can speak out and she is doing so. Hurray!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
116. I'm glad she's speaking out like this. Of couse I'm very sorry she felt
she had to retire (I'm sure the pressures were extreme), but she could have retired and just stayed quiet. She can be a powerful spokesperson in finally waking up more people to the urgent crisis this country is in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bedazzled Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
117. lady macbeth couldn't wash the blood off of her hands
and neither can o'connor

i hope she rots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devil Dog Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
118. F_ _K HER!
She enabled all these SOBs! Now she complains?

Let her rot in hell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
120. Is it "us against O'Connor" or "us against Bushco"?
Come on! We may not love her BUT she is one person who can reach moderates. Lotta shooting self in foot going on in this thread. No offense meant. But let's get on task here - the task being defeating Bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
121. Next she'll say Republicans on SCOTUS should not fix elections.
:rofl:

Thanks honny, but you're a little fucking late!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
123. She says this so she'll look better on the historical record
but she ALLOWED IT to happen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
132. Too little
Edited on Sat Mar-11-06 07:10 PM by fujiyama
Too late.

It's hard for me to take her seriously. What was she thinking?

First she makes a statement on election night whining after FL is called for Gore - that she can't retire under him.

Then she disregards any legal reasoning whatsoever in installing Bush in the most partisan ruling in the SC history.

And now she bitches about the consequences?

I think she's just trying to make herself look like the wise retired moderate.

I hope the guilts eats away at her at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
135. Refresh my memory, please. Who (in the Supreme Court)
voted to give Dubya the presidency? Who voted against?

==if she hadn't handed him the presidency in 2000 we wouldn't have to worry about now would we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
136. I love her but why did she leave if she knew its a dictatorship
and why did she vote George in 2000... It seems her concious is hurting and she is asking redemption... Its never to late for redemption... Good for her...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnlal Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
139. Too little, Too late
Of all of the good things this Justice has done, her legacy will be tarnished by her vote in the case of Bush v. Gore. I can't understand how she can have the nerve to cry about the usurpation of judicial power when she was the one who appointed this dolt in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC