O'Connor decries attacks on judiciary - In a speech at the University of Minnesota

The Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | May 23, 2006 | Eric Black

[new yorker 77]

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a University of Minnesota audience Tuesday night that she has been "saddened and disturbed" by the verbal attacks on state and federal judges that have been made by member of Congress who disagree with their decisions. O'Connor said lawmakers, who she didn't name, have threatened retaliation against judges -- including "mass impeachments" and cutting off court jurisdictions from certain kind of cases -- for decisions that are politically unpopular.

Such efforts to politicize the court jeopardize the balance of powers, O'Connor said, and defy the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution, who, she said, knew that "without justices who could and would make decisions that they knew were unpopular, we would lose the protections of our Constitution."

Most of O'Connor's remarks to the packed Northrop Auditorium audience of 4,500 were a light-hearted review of famous firsts on the Supreme Court, of which she is one.

Everyone in Washington needs an acronym, she said, so she took to calling herself FWOTSC -- First Woman on the Supreme Court.

She also noted that since 1944, when Lucile Lomen became the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court clerk, the representation of women on the court's clerk staff has climbed to 40 percent. That's still low compared with the percentage of women in law schools, she said, but "it's much better than the percentage of women on the court, which has dropped substantially."

....

Eric Black • 612-673-7294

[new yorker 77]

FYI

[GianniV]

Sandra Day O'Connor should have been aborted. After all, she believes in the "right to choose." Her mother should've exercised "that right."

[The Electrician]

Such efforts to politicize the court jeopardize the balance of powers, O'Connor said, and defy the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution, who, she said, knew that "without justices who could and would make decisions that they knew were unpopular, we would lose the protections of our Constitution."

So, according to O'Connor's "wisdom", none of the courts are currently politicized from within, nor have they ever been, and it is only because of those awful Republicans who are shredding the Constitution that efforts are being made to politicize the courts? Did the audience break out in howls of laughter and derision when they heard this?

[Migraine]

lawmakers, who she didn't name, have threatened retaliation against judges -- including "mass impeachments" and cutting off court jurisdictions from certain kind of cases -- for decisions that are politically unpopular. Such efforts to politicize the court jeopardize the balance of powers

Au contraire, ma soeur! Two reasons (in the form of rhetorical questions):
1) Have courts not occasionally overstepped their constitutional bounds, thereby threatening the very foundations O'connor seems so interested in preserving? and
2) Does the Constitution not only allow, but require require, the legislative branch to exercise a check on the actions of the Judiciary?

Next case.

[Enchante]

"Such efforts to politicize the court"

O'Connor is taking the side of the leftists while pretending to 'neutrality' -- the courts have already been grossly politicized for DECADES by cadres of liberal-left activists who use the law schools and the political process to insert themselves and their ideas into every level of the judiciary. They legislate from the bench, write law journal articles rationalizing their political take-over of the law, and then whine about 'politicization' if anyone dares to object. It's been a long time since the judiciary functioned in anything like the way expected by the constitutional framers and by our original legal traditions.

[Sunshine Sister]

I'd be curious to know what O'Connor knows about the framers. I make that statement in view of some of the decisions she foisted off on the people of this country.

[peyton randolph]

The best decision O'Connor ever made was to retire.

[BenLurkin]

"The courts have already been grossly politicized for DECADES by cadres of liberal-left activists who use the law schools and the political process to insert themselves and their ideas into every level of the judiciary. They legislate from the bench, write law journal articles rationalizing their political take-over of the law, and then whine about 'politicization' if anyone dares to object."

BRAVO!

[siunevada]

O'Connor said lawmakers, who she didn't name, have threatened retaliation against judges

Maybe it was something she ate or an attempt at rhetorical hyperbole.

If these 'lawmakers' are real and not imaginary and all they do is threaten, who cares what they say? No one seems to be making any actual 'moves' against the independence of the judiciary.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Such efforts to politicize the court jeopardize the balance of powers, O'Connor said, and defy the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution, who, she said, knew that "without justices who could and would make decisions that they knew were unpopular, we would lose the protections of our Constitution."

The Constitution of what country?

We need to remember that Justice O'Connor thinks that we should take into account the legal precedents in other countries. She's probably not referring to the US Constitution.

[BykrBayb]

O'Connor said lawmakers, who she didn't name, have threatened retaliation against judges -- including "mass impeachments" and cutting off court jurisdictions from certain kind of cases -- for decisions that are politically unpopular.

Yes, but not because they are unpopular. Because they are unconstitutional. Which happens to be why they are unpopular. But, the distinction is lost on her.

[napscoordinator]

I wanted so badly to tell her to shut up, but then I remembered my favorite scilia was saying something awhile back at a college so I can't be a hypocrite even though I kinda want to. Man maybe all Justices active and retired should just keep comments to themselves because really in the long run it is normally the wackos that say the most ridiculous stuff anyway.

[robowombat]

Insiders in general come to believe they defecate rose petals, but the worst have got to be the judicial egomaniacs. The judiciary has an incredibly inflated (from what the intent of the founders was) of their position that it would be laughable if these peoplemhadn't managed to grab so much power which they can use to ruin everyone else's lives in order to formulate their pet scheme of 'perfect justice'. Someone should tell this bloviating member of the Geritol generation that she is served under a written constitution with checks and balances specifically designed in it. She was not appointed Cadi by the Sultan to rule as she saw fit with the peasants.

[pankot]

Femi-Nazi alert! She's figured out that we know how corrupt all courts are.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

O'Connor should shut her pie-hole.

Good riddance.

[Clintonfatigued]

Isn't O'Connor familiar with The First Amendment? The attacks wouldn't have an impact if the rulings withstood scrutiny better.