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

Skip to comments.

Former Top Judge Says US Risks Edging Near To Dictatorship
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 3-13-2006 | Julian Borger

Posted on 03/12/2006 6:49:12 PM PST by blam

Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship

· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian (UK)

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.

Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

In her address to an audience of corporate lawyers on Thursday, Ms O'Connor singled out a warning to the judiciary issued last year by Tom DeLay, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives, over a court ruling in a controversial "right to die" case.

After the decision last March that ordered a brain-dead woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, removed from life support, Mr DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour."

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dictatorship; edging; former; judge; near; oconnor; risks; sandradayoconnor; scotus; top; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: blam

Thank God she is gone from the United States Supreme Court. She was a disaster.


101 posted on 03/12/2006 8:34:45 PM PST by putupjob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
LOL!

The really sad thing is that when most people these days talk about the Constitution and their rights (especially lawyers), they are referring to the legal Don Quixote fabricated by the leftists on the SCOTUS the past 50 years, not the real Constitution.

The real Constitution protects political speech absolutely (including campaign contributions) but extends no protection to abortion or sodomy. They have stood the real principles on their head, infantilizing the political meaning of the document and giving a great example of how to institutionalize despotism and get away with it.

102 posted on 03/12/2006 8:36:35 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam

Thank God O'Connor is gone. But it looks like she has learned a lot of lessons from the Dems: like shooting off her mouth when she should stay quiet, and thinking that she is the fountain of all wisdom.


103 posted on 03/12/2006 8:55:50 PM PST by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Her lasting imprint on the court will be her recent opinion where she favored affirmative action. She believed it would be necessary (Constitutional) for another 25 years. How something can stop being Constitutional in 25 years is reasonable only in the minds of those who believe the Consittution has no enduring meaning.


104 posted on 03/12/2006 9:00:00 PM PST by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

I'd have to hear her remarks or read them in context before I'd belive the Guardian's reporting of her speech.


105 posted on 03/12/2006 9:06:11 PM PST by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

I'll pay her recreational drug bill if she can show me where the Constitution gives the right to kill an innocent person to anyone. I'm not a big Pro Terri guy - but the killers in this case were just too darned weird.

I suppose the right may belong to the States.

Funny how a time of reconning is exactly how the Christian Right would phrase the same outcome.

She is crackers.


106 posted on 03/12/2006 9:16:35 PM PST by Mr. Rational
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ursus arctos horribilis
So much for the old bats centrist and moderate label, she was/is a flaming commie.

agree that!

sounds like she was a socialist sleeper masquerading as a moderate to get appointed

She's one who liked to rule, not by our the U. S. Constitution - but by fr*ging European Law!!??

She helped the SCOTUS become a dictatorship - take just one example - the dictatorial, unconstitutional eminent domain ruling

107 posted on 03/12/2006 9:20:38 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
There are only two things in the middle of the road, yellow stripes and dead skunks!

LOL

I gotta remember that one!

108 posted on 03/12/2006 9:26:19 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

I know! It had me ROTFLOL!


109 posted on 03/12/2006 9:35:27 PM PST by CyberAnt (Democrats/Old Media: "controversy, crap and confusion" -- Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.

Riiggghhht. Those poor ol' federal judges, those poor ol' guys.

The 800 odd judges who run this country like an oligarchy.

The ones who can "carry" anywhere they want to, unlike the peasants who would be disarmed if the majority of federal judges got their way.

The ones who get this headline in the Lame Stream Media:

"A federal judge today ruled..." - as if a federal judge's opinion was Handed Down From The Mount.

Yeah, they're REALLY disadvantaged.

O'Commie went over to the Dark Side.

110 posted on 03/12/2006 9:44:34 PM PST by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The article in the Chicago Law Bulletin doesn't say what the Guardian says. The Guardian as usual stretched the people who they are reporting on words to fit the desired story. You can read it on line with their 15 day free registration. The article is entitled: O'Connor: Lawyers must come to defense of judicial independence. The URL for the paper is http://www.lawbulletin.com/
111 posted on 03/12/2006 10:06:35 PM PST by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Yes, folks, she said these things. Several other news outlet have reported it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593959/posts


112 posted on 03/12/2006 10:31:04 PM PST by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I wouldn't let this article raise your blood pressure, it's something I have come to get use to of the liberals.
At least they don't disappoint, Liberals being Liberals.
113 posted on 03/12/2006 10:48:27 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Hi Sandy AKA Sandra D.O'. I thought you retired to have more time for your family. What happened?


114 posted on 03/12/2006 11:34:27 PM PST by zip ((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
Uhm, sorry , we didn't mean it, Mrs O'! (May we call you Sandy?)

You beat me to it. Great minds........:>)

115 posted on 03/12/2006 11:38:46 PM PST by zip ((Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough become truth to 48% of all Americans (NRA))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

So much for her type democracy....So if the right is the majority rule through the election process. I guess she thinks she's the saviour of the democracy. Give me a break.


116 posted on 03/12/2006 11:39:48 PM PST by ONETWOONE (onetwoone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam

For those who think Reagan could do bo wrong and Bush can do no right please remember who put her on the Supreme Court


117 posted on 03/12/2006 11:45:19 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

"We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

We must be ever-vigilant against the judiciary that would strong-arm the liberty of a free people.


118 posted on 03/12/2006 11:59:48 PM PST by Cap Huff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sig226
As a retired member of the oligarchy, I believe that she continues to be paid by us.

That makes her asking Americans to refrain their use of the 1st amendment even more horrifying.

119 posted on 03/13/2006 1:16:10 AM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

"edju4647@att.net"

Amen! The old bag is maybe out of our harm's way! She should retire to a nice estate in North Korea. Their politics would be agreeable to her.


120 posted on 03/13/2006 6:12:07 AM PST by RoadTest ("- - a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people." - Richard Henry Lee, 1786)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 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