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

Skip to comments.

O'Connor disappointed she wasn't replaced by a woman
Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | Apr 8, 2006 | Andrew Petkofsky

Posted on 04/08/2006 2:25:02 PM PDT by skandalon

WILLIAMSBURG - Sandra Day O'Connor said yesterday that she was sad that a woman was not chosen to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat opened by her retirement.

"I was disappointed to see the women on the Supreme Court drop by 50 percent," O'Connor told an audience of more than 700 students at the College of William and Mary.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: oconnor; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: skandalon

I agree. Man or Woman doesn't matter, the judge that fills the chair does.


41 posted on 04/08/2006 4:14:35 PM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270, God Bless America and All Who Have and Will Defend Her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

I am just plain glad she is no longer on the court. We don't need people such as she who do not use the constitution as a guideline; only as a stepping stone for their own personal agendas. That we sure don't need.


42 posted on 04/08/2006 4:16:12 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

Bush tried his best to give her her wish.


43 posted on 04/08/2006 4:20:17 PM PDT by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

Sandra,
You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it


44 posted on 04/08/2006 4:24:37 PM PDT by Highway55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

Hey Sandy, how would your speech have changed if Janice Rogers Brown had been confirmed to take your place?


45 posted on 04/08/2006 4:27:21 PM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon
O'Connor seemed feckless, if not completely unqualified for the supremes.

In her favor, she sided with the 5-4 majority that agreed that Dubya won the 2000 election. (I think the issue was whether the Florida legislature or left wing Fla state supremes had jurisdiction over the certification, and the leg clearly had it.)

With this vote, and considering what happened in 2001, she had a positive impact on the country that I believe counteracts at least some of her many incompetent and left-leaning votes. (I understand, however, that this is a highly debatable point.)

Her legacy? "Undistinguished" comes to mind.

.

46 posted on 04/08/2006 4:29:36 PM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

That's certainly a sexist comment. She must want that quota system for the SCOTUS: the Jew seat, the black seat, the woman's seat, the inevitable Mexican seat, etc. I'm sure in the future someone will get the bright idea for a Muslim seat. I hope I'm dead by then.


47 posted on 04/08/2006 4:33:22 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon
"Sandra Day O'Connor said yesterday that she was sad that a woman was not chosen to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat opened by her retirement."

Gee, Granny O'Connor, and I'm sad that you didn't retire about two weeks after you were sworn in.

48 posted on 04/08/2006 4:37:24 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

As a woman I am disappointed that she is disappointed. I could care less what the gender of the USSC justice is. I want to know what they think about the Constitution not what chromosomes they are made up of. She needs to move on she is so behind the times. This is the time of post feminism. At least it is for me.


49 posted on 04/08/2006 5:01:45 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Ms. Brown is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.


50 posted on 04/08/2006 5:11:45 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Ms. Brown is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

A libertarian and a conservative can be the same thing. The ideal of conservatism is not, nor should it be, tied to one party. I know this upsets Republicans (especially the theocratic ones), as they mistakenly believe they carry the conservative flame. Brown is more of a conservative, Justice Thomas exempted of course, than any of the political appointees currently sitting on SCOTUS.

51 posted on 04/08/2006 5:23:21 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: skandalon
The most qualified women the democrats would NEVER allow..
What a ditz... almost as bad as Rube Ginsberg..
52 posted on 04/08/2006 5:27:55 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

So she would have been happy to see Janice Rodgers Brown
appointed?

Well I would have been.


53 posted on 04/08/2006 6:08:03 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: skandalon
Related thread:

[Sandra Day] O'Connor Dons New Robe as William & Mary Chancellor

54 posted on 04/08/2006 9:20:20 PM PDT by Ligeia (Woohoo, GMU!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skandalon
One down. One to go.

O'Connor was a disgrace to the court, advocating european law over the US Constitution she was sworn to uphold. Not surprisingly, she now advocates establishing quotas for the USSC based on sexual characteristics. Evidently, she's too dumb to realize the doors she opens with these comments.

55 posted on 04/09/2006 12:46:22 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
"She must want that quota system for the SCOTUS: the Jew seat, the black seat, the woman's seat, the inevitable Mexican seat, etc. I'm sure in the future someone will get the bright idea for a Muslim seat."

Actually, I think the thrust of her complaint concerns something like proportional representation. Following that logic, most of the court should be Christian. And, of course, any ethnic group constituting less than 11% of the population should have no seat on the court since that would unfairly exclude representation of a larger ethnic demographic. This, of course, would mean no Jews on the court -- at least, according to O'Connor's dubious logic.

56 posted on 04/09/2006 12:53:35 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: skandalon

She's certainly hung up on non-essentials!


57 posted on 04/09/2006 5:21:47 AM PDT by RoadTest (The wicked love darkness; but God's people love the Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 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