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

Skip to comments.

O'Connor Dismisses Rumors That She Plans to Retire From Court
The New York Times ^ | July 6, 2003 | JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.

Posted on 07/06/2003 12:25:01 PM PDT by sarcasm

WASHINGTON, July 6 — Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said today that she would serve out the next term of the Supreme Court, dismissing speculation that she was ready to retire.

In an unusual televised interview together with Justice Stephen G. Breyer she also denied longstanding reports that she had intended, in the year 2000, to retire unless Vice President Al Gore became president.

The two justices appeared on the ABC program "This Week," an appearance that ABC said was the first by any sitting justice on the networks' Sunday morning interview programs.

The show's host, George Stephanopoulos, referring to widespread speculation that she was about to retire, asked, "Should we take your silence to mean you intend to serve out the next term?"

"Oh, I assume so," she answered.

Anticipating a vacancy on the court, interest groups and politicians on the right and left had already begun mounting vigorous campaigns to influence President Bush's choice of a new nominee. But when neither Justice O'Connor nor any other justice announced a retirement when the court's term ended in June, it was widely seen as making those campaigns moot.

Speaking out shortly after the court had split sharply on several contentious matters, including gay rights and affirmative action, both justices seemed intent on playing down the court's ideological divisions, which had become especially plain in dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the most conservative members of the court.

Even when fundamental disagreements boil over into sharply worded opinions, they said, the justices do not take it personally.

"When you work in a small group of that size, you have to get along, and so you're not going to let some harsh language, some dissenting opinion affect a personal relationship," Justice O'Connor said. "You can't do that."

Justice Breyer said that he sometimes felt when he read "rather sharp words about something I've written, perhaps that it's sort of a question of rhetoric, more than it is of actual human feeling.

"So if I'm really put out by something, I can only go to the person who wrote it and say, `Look, I think you've gone somewhat too far here.' "

Justice Breyer, who joined the majority opinion in the court's ruling to overturn its own precedent and declare unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sex between homosexuals, briefly discussed one of the disagreements on the court that was aired in the opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and in Mr. Scalia's scathing dissent.

Their difference was over whether the court should pay attention to legal opinions of other world courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Justice Breyer held that the foreign court's view that gay men and lesbians had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's prior decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition. Mr. Scalia said that the views of foreign jurists were irrelevant under the United States Constitution.

"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," Justice Breyer said.

"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," he continued. "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."


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitutionlist; oconnor; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
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," he continued. "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."

Puke

1 posted on 07/06/2003 12:25:03 PM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Forget retirment, the court needs to forcibly eject her.
2 posted on 07/06/2003 12:30:22 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (This space for rent, call 555-9388.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
SC Justice's have no business appearing on political talk shows.

Was Sandra promoting her new book, or merely there to counterbalance Breyer (if so that's a laugh of its own) or to lend 'balance' to an otherwise leftie-weighted sham of David Brinkey's old show?

I'm hurling right along with you!
3 posted on 07/06/2003 12:33:40 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations

DOUBLE PUKE.......
4 posted on 07/06/2003 12:34:01 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Other nations need to follow our example, and not the other way around.
5 posted on 07/06/2003 12:34:23 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
O'Conner is a traitor to our Constitution and her oath to the Citizens of the USA! Impeach her!
6 posted on 07/06/2003 12:35:11 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Sandy's not about to retire. She want to be Chief Justice when Rhenquist retires later this summer.
7 posted on 07/06/2003 12:36:21 PM PDT by upchuck (Contribute to "Republicans for Al Sharpton for President in 2004." Dial 1-800-SLAPTHADONKEY :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"They missed it by 'that' much".

8 posted on 07/06/2003 12:36:56 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm; TLBSHOW; Dog Gone
I can't believe a member of the U.S. Supreme Court would utter such a treasonous statement. This must be a mis-quote?
9 posted on 07/06/2003 12:39:29 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I think this is the main reason why Rehnquist will not retire, he will not allow her to become chief justice. They are both going to stay on as long as health permits.
10 posted on 07/06/2003 12:39:32 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Damn!
11 posted on 07/06/2003 12:39:42 PM PDT by Types_with_Fist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
This makes my blood boil.

Do they even KNOW WHAT THEIR JOBS ARE "SUPPOSED" TO BE?
12 posted on 07/06/2003 12:41:32 PM PDT by LaraCroft ('Bout time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I heard Rush talking about this. Very scary, and a very real possibility. G.W.B. might elevate Sandie as a way to generate some of the female vote.
13 posted on 07/06/2003 12:42:35 PM PDT by undergroundwarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapMom
But when neither Justice O'Connor nor any other justice announced a retirement when the court's term ended in June, it was widely seen as making those campaigns moot.


It didn't keep the Novaks etal from using unnamed sources to further the speculation...... lol


14 posted on 07/06/2003 12:44:45 PM PDT by deport (Don't kick a cow patty on a hot day........... just a dem enabler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
It's no suprise that those two were on TV talking about social revision.

Treason, Lake of Knowledge, Arrogance, Selfishness, Patronizing, Politically correct, Shortsided. The seven deadly sins of ruling judges.
15 posted on 07/06/2003 12:45:17 PM PDT by LaraCroft ('Bout time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
I guess having a part of a building almost drop on one's head isn't enough of a clue that something's amiss.
16 posted on 07/06/2003 12:59:46 PM PDT by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Their difference was over whether the court should pay attention to legal opinions of other world courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Justice Breyer held that the foreign court's view that gay men and lesbians had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's prior decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition. Mr. Scalia said that the views of foreign jurists were irrelevant under the United States Constitution.

Boy now we are ruled by the European Courts.

These "justices" must be impeached. This is the United States of America not the Peoples Republic of the World.

17 posted on 07/06/2003 2:00:58 PM PDT by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImphClinton
These "justices" must be impeached. This is the United States of America not the Peoples Republic of the World.


BUMP

no wonder they don't go on TV much their true nature shows but GOOD.....
18 posted on 07/06/2003 2:18:33 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: sarcasm
I think this is just as well. I share everyone's opinion of O'Connor as a lousy judge and a terrible appointment to the court. But I also suspect that she would have stepped down now if Bush had been getting his judicial appointments through the senate confirmation process. But he's not. Probably nothing can be done until after the 2004 election, when the Republicans may with luck gain a better edge in the Senate. Until then, we're better off keeping this confused jerk on a little longer.
20 posted on 07/06/2003 2:23:37 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations

Blech. Our Constitution, through its simple beauty, does not need to and never will fit into the "governing documents of other nations," as it will far outshine them, especially monstrous messes like that EU constitution.

21 posted on 07/06/2003 2:27:03 PM PDT by ItsBacon (I smell bacon! Where's the bacon? baconbaconbaconbaconbaconbaconbaconbacon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Sandra Day O'Connor is the 2003 proof of that old adage. I don't think she is ready to go back to the AZ ranch and settle for bossing around the hired help when she can cast the deciding vote for an entire nation.
22 posted on 07/06/2003 3:06:29 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Forget retirment, the court needs to forcibly eject her.

///////////
Reagan's WORST mistake -- and, BOY, was it a DOOZEY!
23 posted on 07/06/2003 3:07:12 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Notice that to my knowledge not a single member of Congress has called for the impeachment of O'Connor or any of her five henchmen? Not even Ron Paul to my knowlege. Perhaps he has called for impeachment.
24 posted on 07/06/2003 3:08:02 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Why impeach or single-out Sandra? She didn't vote alone.
25 posted on 07/06/2003 3:09:21 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
I saw her appearance this morning and she looked like she had one foot in the grave already.

I find the idea that she has actually authored any of her opinions this year just laughable.

26 posted on 07/06/2003 3:11:43 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Justice Breyer held that the foreign court's view that gay men and lesbians had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's prior decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

WTF!!??

Can this bozo be serious? And he's supposed to judge our laws by our Constitution???

We either need to get an Order of Impeachment going quick or a find a large bucket of hot tar and some feathers... personally, I'm in favor of both!

Mr. Scalia said that the views of foreign jurists were irrelevant under the United States Constitution.

He's right. He's also in the minority.

We've got some serious problems here, folks. Serious!!

27 posted on 07/06/2003 3:18:32 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
We've got some serious problems here, folks. Serious!!

...

WE SURE DO!.................
28 posted on 07/06/2003 3:31:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: onyx
because O'Connor has been mentioned as the "temporary" successor to Rehnquist as chief justice
29 posted on 07/06/2003 3:32:38 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Correction: "RUMORED" and here at or on FR, mostly by Todd!

Before I'm nit-picked, and by Bobby Novak in one of his recent hysterical columns.
30 posted on 07/06/2003 3:39:45 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
O'Connor Dismisses Rumors That She Plans to Retire From Court

Drat!

31 posted on 07/06/2003 3:41:16 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (We create the future with our words, with our thoughts, with our deeds, and with our beliefs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Haven't you heard? It's an unwritten law of their own making: One does not depart the Supreme Court until well after senility sets in -- and one is seen drooling both from and on the bench.
32 posted on 07/06/2003 3:43:43 PM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
puke is right.

The paragraph you quoted and the leftist gsy rights opinion was the whole articles point.

33 posted on 07/06/2003 3:50:12 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
She could be telling a lie. Or from where she sits maybe she hopes to do more damage to this country with the CFR ruling coming up.
34 posted on 07/06/2003 3:52:09 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm; *Constitution List
Man !!! First the stage piece missed and now THIS !!
< /bad humor >


35 posted on 07/06/2003 3:57:09 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
perhaps Nigeria could offer her sanctuary.
36 posted on 07/06/2003 4:40:14 PM PDT by glock rocks (Thomas would make a good chief justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Their difference was over whether the court should pay attention to legal opinions of other world courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Justice Breyer held that the foreign court's view that gay men and lesbians had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's prior decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

This is the sickest point in the whole article. Treasonous. So the justices aren't supposed to go by the US Constitution, they're supposed to check with the latest decisions by the EU Court. This is nasty and disgusting. If I wanted to live by the EU rules I'd give up my citizenship and go live there. This is REALLY bad news.

37 posted on 07/06/2003 5:08:38 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pram
Disgusted bump...
38 posted on 07/06/2003 5:20:25 PM PDT by demkicker ((I wanna kick some commie butt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
Don't forget "Legislating". It seems some of them got bored with simply interpreting the Constitution, now they want to create laws.
So much for the "checks and balances" of our three branches of government.
39 posted on 07/06/2003 5:29:08 PM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
And I made my comments after reading the article, before I read the other freepers' comments. I think we're on the same wavelength. How about the friggin' EU sickheads respecting our Constitution? I know my language is coarse but this is sick stuff. To think that a Supreme Court Justice admits openly as though it is legitimate to take into consideration what the sick EU courts says or does, or follow its lead. This makes me sick to my stomach and boiling mad.
40 posted on 07/06/2003 5:31:12 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Correction: "RUMORED" and here at or on FR, mostly by Todd!

Before I'm nit-picked, and by Bobby Novak in one of his recent hysterical columns."

onyx, I just don't get comments like this.

Why are so many people so focused on another, as though he's the biggest problem in the country?

The comments by O'Connor and especially Breyer in the article at the top are far more dangerous than anything any of us could conceive of doing.


41 posted on 07/06/2003 5:44:57 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Why not read my post #3.......
To: sarcasm

SC Justice's have no business appearing on political talk shows.

Was Sandra promoting her new book, or merely there to counterbalance Breyer (if so that's a laugh of its own) or to lend 'balance' to an otherwise leftie-weighted sham of David Brinkey's old show?

I'm hurling right along with you!


3 posted on 07/06/2003 12:33 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)




And my post #25.......
To: Theodore R.

Why impeach or single-out Sandra? She didn't vote alone.


25 posted on 07/06/2003 3:09 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)




A little myob might be in order..... :-)
42 posted on 07/06/2003 6:03:44 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"They are both going to stay as long as health permits". This is very wrong. There should be mandatory retirement for every governmental official at age 65. I new a woman who, at age 99, was remarkably clear in her head while being physically disabled. On the other hand, I know a man who is 68 and is remarkably unclear in his head. He's acting so screwy everyone who knows him is commenting on it. The American people cannot trust their country to people who may, or may not, be thinking straight in their dotage. Make them retire at 65.
43 posted on 07/06/2003 6:09:23 PM PDT by maxwellp (Throw the U.N. in the garbage where it belongs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx
A little myob might be in order..... :-)

If it's on a thread, it's not private business. This schoolyard groupthink is way out of hand. I think you're above that.


44 posted on 07/06/2003 6:13:06 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I am, and heretofore I thought the same of you. Please don't prove me wrong. Todd is a big boy. I've seen you come to his defense a few times recently. Todd will have to learn to not twist rumors into facts.
45 posted on 07/06/2003 6:17:10 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

It's finally dawning on people that 5 justices (a majority of the Supreme Court) determine (interpret) what the Constitution means — not the Founding Fathers, or the Congress, or the President, or any of us. That's the way it is.
46 posted on 07/06/2003 6:22:10 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Consort
It looks to me like this whole thing is being set up to cap it all off with a very negative Second Amendment ruling.
47 posted on 07/06/2003 7:04:14 PM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Queen of The Wimp Bloc, compassless virtual dictator of the Supreme Court.
48 posted on 07/06/2003 7:21:28 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." - No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Perhaps they're waiting for Stevens to fall over.
49 posted on 07/06/2003 7:26:51 PM PDT by OldFriend ((BUSH/CHENEY 2004))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
It's true I heard it. She also idicated she has the view that international treaties can trump the Constitution. Wouldn't bother me to see her retire.
50 posted on 07/06/2003 9:23:51 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (The dyslexic agnostic insomniac kept awake pondering the existence of Dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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