Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[mathluv]

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.

[Buggman]

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.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"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.

[Congressman Billybob]

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

[Congressman Billybob]

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

[Congressman Billybob]

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

[Diva Betsy Ross]

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.

[ladylib]

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.

[cyncooper]

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.

[2timothy3.16]

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.

[Normally a Lurker]

Short question, long answer:

First it depends on whether you mean the FL State Supreme Court, or the US Supreme Court. Second it depends on whether you mean the basic court case, or the issue regarding the FL Gov/Legislature overriding the judicial decision.

In short, I believe either of the supreme court levels will/would find the action by the FL Gov/Legislature to have been unconstitutional - a violation of her rights. (lots of issues here - I may be able to explain this in greater detail at another site).

As to the basic case, the lower court decisions have been affirmed by all appeals courts hearing the matter to date (overall 18-19 judges have heard the matter - the latest being a de nova review by 4 or 5 judges - an unusual move in itself). I really doubt that either of the supreme courts would even accept the case on appeal.

[Congressman Billybob]

I read all of the few media accounts that appeared on GoogleNews concerning this speech. They generally agreed on the quotes used from the speech. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution headline -- though an affrort to the Constitution and entirely too gleeful about that -- is an accurate summary of her approach to the subject.

John / Billybob

[ladylib]

Okay. I agree with you. The US Supreme Court would never take this case. The Gov/legislature can't trump the judiciary, as appealing as that may be. Perhaps the legislature could make it more difficult in the future for people like Mr. Schiavo, but they can't do it in this case.

As far as her rights are concerned, it's he said/she said and he wins.

It's been through the court system up and down. That's it.

[tpaine]

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 -cc-

---

O'Connor is as liberal as they come, -- but the idea that she is openly trying to subvert the constitution in 'states rights' matters is rabble-rousing political bull. She's dumb -- but not ~that~ stupid.
Nope. Our wannabe congressman is using some minor rubber chicken dinner remarks to puff himself up as a defender of the 'sovereign states rights' faith..

States have no sovereign 'rights' over individuals, they have powers, limited by our Constitutuion & BOR's.. Sometimes the USSC agrees, -- far to often they don't.

[gatex]

Justice O'Connor also said recently that she does not normally go back to review original documents and writings to get the intent of our founders --- because things like DNA weren't around then.

I saw part of her remarks to a class of students (on tv). She told them that many people do not realize that case law becomes law, "unless we overturn it."

To me, this explains some the judicial activity by the 9th Circuit and others --- if it doesn't get overturned, they have made another law (gun control is a good example).

[Allan]

Bump

[Congressman Billybob]

You have, as usual, gotten the argument upside down. The states are "general" governments. The powers of the federal government are "few and defined," at least if one takes seriously the views of Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist.

I take the views of those who wrote the laws -- and the Constitution is the "supreme Law" -- quite seriously. That's why I've spent forty years studying the writings of the men and women who wrote the Constitution and all of its amendments.

John / Billybob

[tpaine]

You boast of 40 years study..
I took an oath to protect and defend our constitution 48 years ago.
I knew then as I know now that States have no sovereign 'rights' over individuals, they have delegated powers, limited by our Constitutuion & BOR's..

Somehow you claim that this means I've:
-- "as usual, gotten the argument upside down. The states are "general" governments. The powers of the federal government are "few and defined"..

Weird comment.
The general government bit is not at issue. Your comments on the USSC vs states 'rights' are the argument, imo.
- You ~want~ states to have the power to ignore our Bill of Rights.. Why is that?

[Congressman Billybob]

Haven't you ever read the Federalist by Madison, Hamilton and Jay? If you had, you would have recognized one of the most famous quotes from that source, which I used. That book has several chapters on the difference between "limited" and "general" governments. It's hard, if not impossible, for anyone to understand the principle of federalism, without first understanding that distinction.

I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing. To the contrary, the main focus of my work in the Supreme Court and my writing about that Court is to get the Justices to obey the Constitution, including all of its amendments.

You should have the same opinion, if you understand and support the Constitution as written. Do you?

John / Billybob

[tpaine]

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 your 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 -tpaine-

---

I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing.
-Billybob-

---

"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, -- "
--from your article--

---

Since the texas sodomy law decision, you have been posting & writing threads advocating that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, and that the USSC is running amok by striking down such laws.

When confronted, you attempt to bafflegab the issue with ploys about 'general & limited' government.

Why do you ~want~ states to have the power to write unreasonable 'law' about such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws?