Posted on 03/31/2012 7:14:45 PM PDT by BCrago66
3/22/12
Farrar & Farrar Dairy, Inc v. Miller-St. Nazianz, Inc
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-1427-20120322.mp3
US v. Eric Dixon
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-4885-20120322.mp3
US v. Joseph Brunson
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-4071-20120322.mp3
3/23/12
US v. Koorosh Dashtianpoor Roach
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-4118-20120323.mp3
US v. Ugochukwu Enwerem
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-4388-20120323.mp3
William Couch v. John Jabe
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/11-6560-20120323.mp3
Still screwing over Arizonans with her goofy, commie lib decisions after all of these years.
No, screwing the entire country in federal appeals courts throughout the land :-)
I still don’t understand why it’s okay for public universities to discriminate on the basis of race so long as it’s only one of many applicable criteria when it can be demonstrated conclusively in certain cases that race made the difference between acceptance and rejection. Then it’s not one among many, my dear ex-justice, but the only criteria. At least as regards particular pairs of candidates.
Has she ever subsequentally tried to make sense of affirmative action, or is it still the old “one criteria among many” and “diversity is good in itself” canards?
Can’t defend O’Connor on affirmative action. But as a Justice O’Connor is a mixed case; she has also been a defender of liberty.
See, e.g., her great dissent in the Kelo case (2005):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html
But even on the Takings Clause she’s mixed, because one of precedents that made Kelo possible was the terrible Hawaii v. Midkiff (1984), which was her decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0229_ZS.html
Re your “interrogating errant school boys” remark, a couple minutes into the first case I listed, Justice O’Connor piped up: “Speak up a little more clearly, so we can hear what you’re saying!” She didn’t add, “young man,” but she sounded like she was going to.
Sandra Day O’Connor is not as liberal as her critics say she is. Admittedly, her record on human life issues left much to be desired, but she was not Earl Warren in a dress. She was excellent on property rights issues and good on states’ rights as well.
On states’ rights, she was on the right side in both Lopez & Morrison, a very big deal.
I doubt anyone cares, but I was wrong in my first post; turns out Justice Souter has sat for some cases in the First Circuit.
Her insane drivel in Grutter legitimized the unconstitutional affirmative action regime in the colleges, and invented a "compelling state interest" in "diversity"...whatever that is.
The woman's a refugee from the past, and her brains were baked by living too many years in Bowie and Phoenix.
Steam marinating in the Washington D.C. summers didn't help.
Well, he was talking pretty low. :-)
She has been a disaster in immigration rulings during her moonlighting.
One of Reagan’s most glaring failures
Not long after law school graduation, this young lawyer argued a case before a local district judge (over 3 counties). To reenforce his point, the lawyer cited and held up a very recent Supreme Court Decision. The decision was thin and bound with a thickness like Good Housekeeping or some other magazine, not having been out long enough to have been included in a volume of decisions. The judge leaned over his desk, looked down and said"Young man, we do not practice magazine law in_______County."
The judge ruled against the "young man's" client.
vaudine
I wonder how she would vote on Obamacare?
Three guesses... no, one.
She did get Kelo right, I’ll give her that.
It is the lingering stench of the Kelo ruling that should scare everybody half to death when it comes to Kennedy.
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.