Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 11/03/2003 11:46:29 AM PST by Congressman Billybob

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor confessed last week that she has violated her oath of office in the past. That she intends to violate her oath in the future. And that she thinks this is good for America. Does that sound highly improbable? Wouldn't the national press have covered such a thing if it happened? Read on.

The Constitution states the oath of office that Presidents must take before entering on their duties. Each President must swear (or affirm) that he will "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." By custom, all other federal officials including Justices of the Supreme Court take a similar oath before entering upon their duties.

Justice O'Connor received the World Justice Award from the Southern Center for International Studies at its annual dinner in Atlanta last week. This is an obscure award from a semi-obscure organization. And speeches by Justices of the Supreme Court are not a hot ticket for the national media generally. So this may be the first that most readers have heard of this event.

Despite the fact that a "GoogleNews" search showed that only seven media outlets bothered to cover this, most of them local to Atlanta, this was an important speech. In it, the Justice revealed more than she may have intended about the Court and about herself. As with everyone who has ever "gotten a dinner," she made a speech that was generally pleasing to those who organized the event.

The main article was published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 29 October, and was glowing in its praise for Justice O'Connor's remarks. Its title was, "O'Connor Says Court has its Ear to the World." The Journal-Constitution didn't bother to look into the background of the Southern Center for International Studies; I did. The dominant bloc on the board of the Center is past and present officers of the Coca-Cola Company, including its Vice President for Global Affairs. Presumably, money from Coca-Cola or from its charitable Foundation flowed in proportion to its phalanx of officers volunteered to the Center.

Reading the website of the Center leads to the conclusion that it favors international trade, of course, and opposes national impediments to such trade, including laws of the United States. Justice O'Connor's speech did not disappoint in that regard.

The gist of Justice O'Connor's speech was that decisions of the Supreme Court affect the reputation of the United States around the world, and that the Court should take that into account in deciding its cases. She said to her appreciative hosts, "The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark."

She demonstrated her point with references to two decisions of the Court: the 2002 one that mentally retarded murderers should not be executed, and the 2003 one which struck down the Texas sodomy laws (and similar laws in 30 other states). In the death penalty case, Justice O'Connor said that the Court "regarded world opinion" in its ruling that executing retarded murderers was unconstitutional. She noted that American diplomats had filed a brief before the Court, arguing that their foreign missions had difficulties due to US practices in death penalty cases.

She did not see fit to mention the inconvenient detail that most death penalty cases in the US arise under the criminal laws of the various sovereign states, and that the US Constitution gives the subject of criminal law to the state governments themselves, acting on behalf of their own citizens. The same point applied to the other example which she cited with favor, the Texas sodomy statute which the Court struck down, while rejecting one of its own precedents in ruling with the laws and decisions of other nations as against those of the United States.

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

It ought not to be necessary to remind a Justice of the Supreme Court what the Constitution says about the authority of that Court. Reporters (and their editors) who cover the Court and its Justices ought to have a copy of the Constitution handy, and should refer to its text when relevant. Since both the Justice and the reporters on this occasion fell down on the job, I'll make up the lack.

Article III of the Constitution defined the federal judiciary. Section 1 created the Supreme Court and established its limited original jurisdiction. It also gave Congress the power to create lower federal courts and define the jurisdiction of the lower courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Then, having defined the courts, the Constitution defined their jurisdiction.

Section 2, says that "The judicial power of the United States shall extend to all Cases, in Law and in Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under its authority." To put it in plain English, the jurisdiction of all the federal courts extends only to laws and constitutions in the United States, both state and federal. International law is, exactly as Justice Scalia said in his stinging dissent in the Texas sodomy case, absolutely irrelevant to the decision of any Supreme Court case.

The only way that international law can become relevant to a case in federal courts, is if it's incorporated into a treaty that's been ratified. The reason for that is the Constitution specifies that a treaty, once ratified by the Senate, becomes part of the laws of the United States. It then becomes relevant not because it is an international law, but because Senate ratification has made it part of US law.

So in admitting that she and other Justices in some prior decisions had used international law generally, not limited to ratified treaties, and that they would do so again in the future, Justice O'Connor was violating her oath to "preserve, protect and defend ... the Constitution."

Why did the Southern Center for International Studies decide to honor Justice O'Connor (and honor itself by persuading her to accept its award)? Perhaps they chose her as being compatible with the Center's globalist views because of an interview months ago that Justices Breyer and O'Connor jointly did with ABC News' "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos. Justice Breyer attacked Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the Texas sodomy ruling, which contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution. Justice Breyer added, apparently with Justice O'Connor's approval, "We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really –– it's trite but it's true –– is growing together.... Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

This attitude that the Court should be a legal adjunct to the State Department to "win friends and influence people" conflicts with some of the Court's own decisions which have recognized that international affairs are "peculiarly given" to the President and the State Department, and not to either the Congress or the federal courts. Furthermore, this attitude is a frontal assault on the most basic and central premise of American political theory and the Constitution itself.

As the Declaration of Independence states, the most basic political right is that of self-government. This is enshrined in law in Article V of the Constitution, which gives the right of amending the Constitution solely to the people of the United States – acting through their elected representatives in Congress and in the state legislatures. The Constitution gives no power whatsoever to the nine unelected Justices of the Supreme Court to amend it as they choose, for whatever reasons at least five of them might cobble together.

If the people of the United States, acting through Congress and the state legislatures, were to decide that some aspects of international law should be incorporated into the Constitution, that would be a legitimate decision. But that is quite a different matter than the unelected Justices appointing themselves as Platonic "philosopher kings" to take such a decision away from the people and impose it by judicial fiat.

The United States has become a beacon to the world, symbolized by the Statue of Liberty, precisely because of the government, society, and economy that it has developed since 1787. And amendments to the Constitution will, of course, have their effects on the society and economy of the United States. But nothing in that Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to usurp the amendment power and to make such changes on its own hook. This is especially true when the Court wants to make changes based on its own personal preference for laws of other jurisdictions over laws of the United States. This logical conclusion is so clear and obvious that it's appalling to see a sitting Justice of the Court say the opposite, deliberately and in public.

In short, Justice O'Connor's speech to the Southern Center demonstrates that she has willingly violated her oath as a Justice, that she intends to do the same thing in the future, and that she's proud of that behavior. There should be little doubt in light of this, why the confirmation of new judges, and ultimately new Justices, has become such a tooth-and-nail fight between those who want judges who will obey the law and the Constitution and those who want judges who are "progressive" and therefore "open-minded" on such matters. Justices do not take an oath to be "open-minded" about enforcing the Constitution.

Nothing less than the future of the Constitution, and of the central concept of popular sovereignty over our government, are at stake.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

- 30 -


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: congressmanbillybob; internationallaw; justiceoconnor; oathofoffice; oconnor; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.

Lemme know what you think.

1 posted on 11/03/2003 11:46:31 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
What does it take to impeach a judge?
2 posted on 11/03/2003 11:49:44 AM PST by mathluv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

3 posted on 11/03/2003 11:53:43 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The U.S. Supreme Court is going the way of the U.N. Security Council. The day is soon coming when it will be irrelevent.
4 posted on 11/03/2003 11:54:01 AM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I hope Terry Schiavo never makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court given how some countries feel about euthanasia.
5 posted on 11/03/2003 11:57:25 AM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Except the UN Security Council is not "hardwired" into the organic document of the United States.
6 posted on 11/03/2003 11:57:31 AM PST by Treebeard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.

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

7 posted on 11/03/2003 11:58:59 AM PST by Ff--150 (we have been fed with milk, not meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Excellent artile BB. Lots of food for thought therein, albeit some appears to be poisoned food. Thanks so much for posting it.
8 posted on 11/03/2003 12:00:18 PM PST by Normally a Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladylib
No comment - except I hope that this dosen't turn into a Terri thread, as I was hoping to discuss other important aspects of the problem addressed.
9 posted on 11/03/2003 12:02:12 PM PST by Normally a Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
INTREP
10 posted on 11/03/2003 12:03:49 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Sandra Day O'Connor has been unleashed... what has gotten into her? These type of judges must be retired. Can pressure be brought to bear?
11 posted on 11/03/2003 12:07:05 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
O'Conner should be brought up on sedition and treason charges.
12 posted on 11/03/2003 12:12:52 PM PST by Stopislamnow (It will be too late when we're all dead. And the way our government is going, it'll be soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
The process for impeaching a judge or Justice is exactly the same as for Presidents, etc. The last judge to be impeached was Alcee Hastings, then a US District Judge in California. After being thrown off the bench for taking bribes from two drug dealers, he got himself elected and reelected to Congress. LOL.

John / Billybob

13 posted on 11/03/2003 12:13:49 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

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

14 posted on 11/03/2003 12:14:56 PM PST by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
I do not have, and could not find, a link to her entire speech. However, the same quotes that I used appeared in all of the few sources on this story.

John / Billybob

15 posted on 11/03/2003 12:15:01 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
If I am not mistaken Marbury v. Madison,5 US 137,174,1803
is also ignored by Justice O'Connor and company.The Oath
of Office suggested in Marbury (if still applicable) shames
this lawless Majority does it not?
16 posted on 11/03/2003 12:19:09 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This is outrageous. Thanks for the post and the information. I would not expect to see this anywhere but here. Thank GOD for the Internet and FR!
17 posted on 11/03/2003 12:19:09 PM PST by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

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

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

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

I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!!
18 posted on 11/03/2003 12:20:10 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
None of the few judges who have been impeached have ever been convicted and removed because they were wrong or even grossly stupid in their decisions. All who were removed had either been found to have committed felonies, or to be habitual drunkards.

Neither of those criteria apply to Justice O'Connor, so I do not expect any serious effort by the House to impeach her, much less would the Senate vote by 2/3rds to convict on a situation like this.

The only pragmatic cure I see for this intellectual disease among the Justices is the confirmation of judges who intend to obey the Constitution, like Judge Janice Brown, etc.

John / Billybob

John / Billybob

19 posted on 11/03/2003 12:20:13 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Calle dScott McInnis's Office today the phone sitter thought
that only the Senate could Impeach a Judge-s the Senate has
Constitutional authority to confirm the Presidents' appointees.But I thought otherwise.
20 posted on 11/03/2003 12:22:09 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Entrenched dishonesty and disobedience to the Constitution by federal courts is, as you know, a MAJOR HOT BUTTON for me. However, I've spent decades taking with groups of lawmen about the Constitution and its application. I have no doubt that for the average voter, the Constitution is roughly 11th on a list of the top ten issues in any campaign.

So, I will not abandon this issue as long as I have life and breath. On the other hand, I will not attempt to win the voters' approval by flogging this issue at every possible opportunity to speak in public. You see the distinction, I hope.

John / Billybob

21 posted on 11/03/2003 12:24:56 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Please ping me if you find a link to her complete speech.

At any rate, you did a good job in this article. It was a pleasure to read such clear writing.

22 posted on 11/03/2003 12:25:58 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You're exactly right about this.

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

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

23 posted on 11/03/2003 12:28:03 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
"All these calls to impeach are so pitiful."

Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical. She is not honoring her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. She should be removed. I am saddened by it though I thought she was one of the good ones.
24 posted on 11/03/2003 12:32:00 PM PST by rebel25 (From my cold dead hands!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
"All these calls to impeach are so pitiful."

Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical. She is not honoring her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. She should be removed. I am saddened by it though I thought she was one of the good ones.
25 posted on 11/03/2003 12:32:28 PM PST by rebel25 (From my cold dead hands!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Impeach the witch and all those that would violate their oath--bunch of dirty rotten no-good scum that feeds at the public trough for their living.
26 posted on 11/03/2003 12:40:14 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Why do you think the Democrats are obstructing Bush's nominees? They are going to take over the US Supreme Court and it wont surprise me to see a dictator in America in this century. Laugh but at least think about it?
27 posted on 11/03/2003 12:43:47 PM PST by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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

Oh, good. I'm deeply gratified.

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

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

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

28 posted on 11/03/2003 12:49:17 PM PST by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
Impeachment is up to the US Senate. The US Senate's decision to impeach is NOT, as some legal fools would have us believe, subject to judicial review.

O'Connor's rantings are in an of themselves, grounds for impeachment. The US Senate right now is a "limp wrist", but I think things are slowly changing for the better. O'Connor's speach is an admission of guilt on her part. She has admitted that Supreme Court rulings have ALREADY been decided based upon "what they do in Europe" and not on the Constitution. That, my friends, is called usurping the Constitution and it is an impeachable offense. It only takes the US Senate to vote that it is an impeachable offense and the bimbo is out on her pompous a$$.

29 posted on 11/03/2003 12:49:59 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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




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

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

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

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.
30 posted on 11/03/2003 12:50:09 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
My simple opinion about this is that former Washington Redskins running back John Riggins must have been a very good judge of character.
31 posted on 11/03/2003 12:57:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebel25
Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical.

Hey, man,...pass some of that you're smokin' this way, I could use a hit, brother...

Whether you or anyone else believes this or not makes no less a truth. Hint: Google: the Missing 13th Amendment.

32 posted on 11/03/2003 1:00:06 PM PST by Ff--150 (we have been fed with milk, not meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well, you laid it out pretty clearly.

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

33 posted on 11/03/2003 1:02:22 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Sad to think they will impeach for being a drunkard but not for treason. Do you think you can get the original speech, I would like to read it for myself.

Thanks

34 posted on 11/03/2003 1:12:29 PM PST by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gunnedah
Why do you think the Democrats are obstructing Bush's nominees? They are going to take over the US Supreme Court and it wont surprise me to see a dictator in America in this century. Laugh but at least think about it?

How about this decade?! Laugh?! Not me. It's so blatantly obvious that the enemies of America are working from "within" than from "without." What you have suggested is a very real possibility...maybe not in this decade, but truly in my life-time (currently 47).

35 posted on 11/03/2003 1:15:21 PM PST by nfldgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
11th? I'm surprised it's that high.

For some reason, this latest "rationale" for overruling the Constitution (i.e. foreign opinion) bothers me more than any of the other dubious methods of subversion. Perhaps I just have a bias against Justices who want to reverse the Revolutionary War!

The idea of the EU and their institutions controlling our country just sickens me.

However, I am not too sure it's fair to refer to Justice O'Connor as "Sandra Dee". Upon series reflection, that airhead bimbo really does fall several steps lower on the intellectual food chain than Ms. Dee.
36 posted on 11/03/2003 1:17:44 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
It only takes the US Senate to vote that it is an impeachable offense and the bimbo is out on her pompous a$$.

Only that'll never happen because the power-grubbing, sleazy, slimy, greasy, wimpy scumbags in the U.S. Senate don't have the courage of conviction to do the right thing, on principle, no matter the cost. They should ALL be thrown out!

37 posted on 11/03/2003 1:20:28 PM PST by nfldgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
I don't understand how a bunch of drunkards (i.e. the Senate) can impeach other drunkards (i.e. the judiciary). Then again, Ted voted along with Sam Nunn to deny John Tower SecDef under George H.W. Bush on the grounds he was too drunk to be SecDef, but not too drunk to be a Senator. Go Figure.

Given the choice between a drunkard who respect the Constitution and a sober traitor, I'll take the drunkard.
38 posted on 11/03/2003 1:22:13 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
It's much easier for the court to define our rights than to inquire what rights we have retained.
33 -mrs-





Actually, it's much easier to carp that the court is redefining 'states rights' to ignore our BOR's.

We should be inquiring why the rights we retain are being attacked..

39 posted on 11/03/2003 1:22:54 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats; Congressman Billybob
Unfortunately, Dubya can't even use O'Connor's reliance on foreign law as a campaign issue because she's a stinkin' Republican appointee. It might have had some appeal to certain independents. At the least, it would have given Dubya a pretty good comeback when badgered by the Dems about Supreme Court appointments.

I suppose one tiny bright spot is that the Dems can't really use it either because they agree with the merits on that case.

40 posted on 11/03/2003 1:23:13 PM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Alcee was the only one that came to mind. I did think Florida, rather then California.

Since the Senate can not even get judges voted on, I guess nothing will come of O'Connor's statements. Only dims are allowed to attack women.

41 posted on 11/03/2003 1:39:58 PM PST by mathluv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Excellent article. I hope you don't mind if I post it on another forum with all appropriate credits and a link back to the original in place.
42 posted on 11/03/2003 1:48:10 PM PST by Buggman (Jesus Saves--the rest of you take full damage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mean Maryjean
"Only that'll never happen because the power-grubbing, sleazy, slimy, greasy, wimpy scumbags in the U.S. Senate don't have the courage of conviction to do the right thing, on principle, no matter the cost. They should ALL be thrown out!

When Daschole votes FOR a ban on partial-birth abortion, I'd say hell has frozen over and things are slowly changing.

43 posted on 11/03/2003 1:49:28 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: george wythe; All
Per your request, I just called the Press Office of the US Supreme Court. Because I am a Member of the Court's Bar, and a writer for UPI, I am qualified to ask questions about Justice O'Connor's speech, and get definitive answers.

The Press Office spokeswoman just told me, minutes ago, that "Justice O'Connor did not make the text of that speech available." She also said that, "If the Southern Center had made the speech available," her office would have been informed. When I asked her whether it was routine, when Justices speak in front of the press, to make texts available for accuracy in quotations, she said, "That's up to the Justices personally."

The bottom line is that Justice O'Conner and the Southern Center for International Studies are trying to keep the wraps on this speech. I leave it to others as to why that is so. From my prior experience, not releasing the text of a public speech by a Justice is rare behavior.

John / Billybob

44 posted on 11/03/2003 1:53:27 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Yes. you have my cheerful consent to reprint this article where you choose. You already anticipated my courtesy requests of byline, copyright, and link back to the original.

Thank you.

John / Billybob

45 posted on 11/03/2003 1:56:05 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
See my note, above, to George Wiley. At Justice O'Connor's choice, the text of this speech is NOT being released. Not by the Supreme Court. Not by the Southern Center. However, all the few news media sources that covered the story used the same quotes that I used in my article, so they're probably correct as far as they go.

John / Billybob

46 posted on 11/03/2003 2:00:49 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This is exactly what I have been saying about the possibility of Terri's law being found unconstitutional. "The people" have more power then the judges. Many people , even here at Freerepublic, do not understand that we are a Republic, or what that means in terms of who has the power to make laws, and who it is that is paid by the taxpayers to enforce the laws , which the tax supported, representatives for the people , called legislatures make.

Judges do not have absolute power.

47 posted on 11/03/2003 2:35:26 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross ((were it not for the brave, there would be no land of the free -))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normally a Lurker
I don't think I ever replied to any of the Terri threads. I was just wondering what would happen if the Supreme Court decided to take a case like hers.
48 posted on 11/03/2003 4:15:42 PM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Lemme know what you think.

I think I am glad to see that you have confirmed my perception of what she said. Some freepers denied her intent, but it appeared plain enough to me.

49 posted on 11/03/2003 4:19:38 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The bottom line is that Justice O'Conner and the Southern Center for International Studies are trying to keep the wraps on this speech.

Then it is time for us to add a little heat. I am open for suggestions as to how.

50 posted on 11/03/2003 4:54:12 PM PST by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson