Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 03/14/2006 View Mon 03/13/2006 View Sun 03/12/2006 View Sat 03/11/2006 View Fri 03/10/2006 View Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006
1
2006-03-14 Home Front: Politix
Sandra Day O'verreaction: US Heading Towards Dictatorship
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2006-03-14 01:02|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 So unless we accept unlimited rule by the judiciary, we're headed for a dictatorship?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-14 07:57|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-14 07:57|| Front Page Top

#2 "I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning."

And we, the majority of Americans, are against judicial activism drive by nakedly partisan reasoning. Go figure, huh? Good God, what a blindly self-absorbed asshole. Leaving the court, in light of this Moonbat outburst, is probably the most honorable thing she has ever done.

Only one "honorable" thing left for her to do - commit Seppuku trash her holiness' critics and collect speaking fees for it.

E'ffing parasite.
Posted by Hupeting Slineng3538 2006-03-14 08:09||   2006-03-14 08:09|| Front Page Top

#3 O'Connor was just "window dressing" when she was appointed, now she will fade into obscurity. Not that there aren't qualified female judges out there. If she is soooo concerned about the judicial system, why is she bugging out at the time of it's crisis?
Typical liberal asshole, bitch and whine, but don't be part of the solution.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-03-14 08:27||   2006-03-14 08:27|| Front Page Top

#4 Hey! Lighten up Sandy baby!!!
Posted by John Riggins 2006-03-14 08:39||   2006-03-14 08:39|| Front Page Top

#5  driven by nakedly partisan reasoning

An interesting turn of phrase, since it exactly describes Nina Totenberg's "reporting" on the Alito nomination.
Posted by Matt 2006-03-14 08:42||   2006-03-14 08:42|| Front Page Top

#6 After some of my dealings with the federal judiciary in relatively simple civil matters, it is not hard to understand that threats against judges are increasing. The courts are doing a lousy job of adjudicating cases on a timely basis. I'm not complaining about the decisions, but the lack thereof and the time it takes to finally get what appears to be one until it is appealed. Cases probably always have taken longer than litigants would like, but now it seems to have become a racket by attorneys and thier judicial enablers to soak clients. I would imagine defendants become even more surly in criminal cases.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 08:53||   2006-03-14 08:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Reading about O'Connors recent Georgetown speech only reminded me of the old Larry Kingston, Ed Nix song that Roy Clark made poplular:

"Oh, thank God and Greyhound you're gone
That load on my mind got lighter when you got on
That shiny old bus is a beautiful sight
With the black smoke a rolling up around the tail lights It may sound kinda cruel but I've been silent too long Thank God and Greyhound you're gone. Thank God and Greyhound you're gone..."





Posted by Visitor 2006-03-14 09:16||   2006-03-14 09:16|| Front Page Top

#8 Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans.

Oh, where should I start. First of all, there is no, and can never be a, "Independent Judiciary"[tm] in a republic. We had something close to that with George the III, but decided to do away with independent non-accountable govenment over two hundred years ago. And how in the hell can you have 'checks and balances' if one branch is independent?

Second, Jefferson wrote in that declaration that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed". That is why elected representatives of the people criticize the courts, who may we point out are yet to be held directly accountable by the people.

Third, it has been the court through fiat that has threatened the very foundation of the republic. Laws must have the consent of the governed. They can not be forced upon them without displaying an absolute contempt for the traditional definition of democracy. The powers which the federal judiciary has assumed upon itself since the 60s is something way beyond anything imagined by the founding fathers.

Fourth, before the NEA fealt it necessary to destroy the modern school system, many of us achieved the ability to actually read the Constitution. It was written in contemporary English. How in the hell do you come up with some of your decision when even we can not find justification for your fiats in that document? Either we're equal before the law or we're not. There is no 'gray' area other than through some declaration of authority and power that is not found in said document. And you say others are a threat to freedoms?

Let us indeed preempt the possibility of degenerating the representative republic and its freedoms into a dictatorship. First lets celebrate the 100th anniversary of the direct election of Senators, the XVII Amendment to the Constitution, by making the SCOTUS also a position subject to the direct consent of the governed by Constitutional amendment.
Posted by Slomorong Shorong4171 2006-03-14 09:16||   2006-03-14 09:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Ehh, she'll change her mind tomorrow.
Posted by BH 2006-03-14 09:20||   2006-03-14 09:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Linky?
Posted by RD 2006-03-14 09:28||   2006-03-14 09:28|| Front Page Top

#11 If she's partisan it makes me wonder why she didn't step down while Clinton was in charge, or hang on a bit longer if she's in decent health. Unless she was sure the Democrats would win in 2000 and 2004 and now she's pretty sure they won't win in 2008 and can't hang on until 2012.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2006-03-14 09:58||   2006-03-14 09:58|| Front Page Top

#12 The donks inflated ole Sandy's head with donkey gas. Besides, she is "woman" hear her roar.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-14 10:37||   2006-03-14 10:37|| Front Page Top

#13 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by mmurray821 2006-03-14 10:50||   2006-03-14 10:50|| Front Page Top

#14 It is the duty of congress to re-arrange the courts so that they function. Right now, this would mean creating far more courts, perhaps whole layers of courts, that currently do not exist; and that is just the short-term solution.

From that point on, they need to set strict limitations on the appealate process, which today is far too open to abuse and leads to cherry-picking which denies justice to deserving cases.

And not just tort reform, but criminal legal reform as well.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-14 11:09||   2006-03-14 11:09|| Front Page Top

#15 correction: former justice
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 11:45||   2006-03-14 11:45|| Front Page Top

#16 The Justices comments certainly do cause you to scratch your head a little. If the court(Judicial Branch) is so mighty and infallible why do we need a Supreme Court?
Posted by TomAnon 2006-03-14 12:05||   2006-03-14 12:05|| Front Page Top

#17 Correction: farmer justice
Posted by 6 2006-03-14 12:07||   2006-03-14 12:07|| Front Page Top

#18 LOL, 6!
Posted by Chetle Omath7541 2006-03-14 12:15||   2006-03-14 12:15|| Front Page Top

#19 Maybe former justice S.D. O'Connor is particulary annoyed at right wing conservative
activist groups attempts to force its agenda on the Courts by pressuring the Republican controlled Congress & President Bush to nominate only judges rubberstamped and appproved by them for appointment, with the expectations that they will vote in accordance to their whims on pertinent issues such as abortion.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 12:48||   2006-03-14 12:48|| Front Page Top

#20 Maybe former justice S.D. O'Connor is particulary annoyed at right wing conservative
activist groups attempts to force its agenda on the Courts by pressuring the Republican controlled Congress & President Bush to nominate only judges rubberstamped and appproved by them for appointment, with the expectations that they will vote in accordance to their whims on pertinent issues such as abortion.

Isn't that what we've been saying? She's annoyed about those things called "elections". I mean, how dare the common man have a say in the governance of his home!

It's not that SDO'C doesn't want a dictatorship -- just that she wants it to be wearing black robes and ruling according to her own preferences.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-14 12:56|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-14 12:56|| Front Page Top

#21 and she has a point. I mean, the rightwingers are so closed minded they want to limit SCOTUS rulings to the Constitution, ignoring the great insights of international law as evolved by e.g. the UN Human Rights committee.
Posted by lotp 2006-03-14 12:57||   2006-03-14 12:57|| Front Page Top

#22 jc said rubberstamped! LOL

surely a rubber drip in his/her own rite from the same tap.
Posted by RD 2006-03-14 12:58||   2006-03-14 12:58|| Front Page Top

#23 No, she saying that the right wingers want to take away the choice of a judge to rule on legal matters "independent" of partisan concerns.

Maybe it annoys her that these right wing conservative groups keep pressuring the republican congress & president bush to load the courts with conservative activist judges who have a agenda and are beholding to them for their appointments.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 13:28||   2006-03-14 13:28|| Front Page Top

#24 Unlike, say, the left wing whose agenda has been pretty active for decades?

See JC, the problem is that some of us are old enough to have some perspective on things. We even remember BEFORE the left used the courts to force public policy that the voters rejected again and again.

Hell, some of us used to BE on the left. And left, so to speak, because of this judicial actism.
Posted by lotp 2006-03-14 13:32||   2006-03-14 13:32|| Front Page Top

#25 If O'Connor is so concerned about erosion of the judiciary's role, why did she step down and surrender her seat in the court to a replacement who would be appointed by a president she regards as driving this trend? Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-14 13:35||   2006-03-14 13:35|| Front Page Top

#26 So she could escape the bonds of justicehood and speak truth to power.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 13:38||   2006-03-14 13:38|| Front Page Top

#27 ltop:

I dont deny that, it works both ways for left and right. I was just commenting on what's bugging O'Connor in the article.

Youre saying you left the democratic party in part because of judicial activism.

So what do you call it when the right does it and why doesnt it bother you then?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 13:41||   2006-03-14 13:41|| Front Page Top

#28 ltop = let's troll other places. Try it.
Posted by Ed Grey 2006-03-14 13:44||   2006-03-14 13:44|| Front Page Top

#29 "So what do you call it when the right does it and why doesnt it bother you then?"

Son, you don't seem to understand what judicial activism is - you've confused it with the mandate given the party in power to choose appointments to the courts. It's in that Constitution thing.

Get your terms and mental processes squared away and make another stab at your inane little game. It's simply fascinating to watch your little gears grind away.
Posted by Chetle Omath7541 2006-03-14 13:47||   2006-03-14 13:47|| Front Page Top

#30 JC: I dont deny that, it works both ways for left and right. I was just commenting on what's bugging O'Connor in the article. Youre saying you left the democratic party in part because of judicial activism. So what do you call it when the right does it and why doesnt it bother you then?

The right hasn't been involved in judicial activism. It is merely trying to reverse six decades of liberal judicial activism. Liberals think that any attempt to reverse liberal judicial activism represents conservative judicial activism. Wrong. It merely represents a return to the status quo ante, before judges took on issues that are no concern of the courts.
Posted by Slung Hupinemble5748 2006-03-14 13:47||   2006-03-14 13:47|| Front Page Top

#31 You guys on the right are too damn funny..

What you are talking about is changing laws on the books to fit your agenda..

That IS judicial activism whether by the right or left. Not only that youre moving the goal post on what IS the status quo..lmao
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 14:11||   2006-03-14 14:11|| Front Page Top

#32 C.O.;

Evidently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I'm not confused about anything YOU are.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 14:14||   2006-03-14 14:14|| Front Page Top

#33 "What you are talking about is changing laws on the books to fit your agenda..

That IS judicial activism whether by the right or left. Not only that youre moving the goal post on what IS the status quo..lmao"

You still don't get it. Any of it.

Either you're Denser than diamond, common as coal. or you're a inarticulate troll.

Whack another IP, mods. Maybe it's on its last one.
Posted by Chetle Omath7541 2006-03-14 14:20||   2006-03-14 14:20|| Front Page Top

#34 o.k. why dont you explain it to me so that my
dense mind will understand.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 14:23||   2006-03-14 14:23|| Front Page Top

#35 An activist is a militant reformer, Just Curious, and a conservative is one who favors traditional views and values, tending to oppose change. So "conservative activist" is an oxymoron -- as opposed to your type of moron.
Posted by Darrell 2006-03-14 14:24||   2006-03-14 14:24|| Front Page Top

#36 Darrell:

I guess "traditional" means:

Segregation of the races in public places

No civil rights laws against discrimination

No womens rights

No legal abortions

No rights for gays..

yes, lets return to the 1950's when everyone
knew their place.

Conservative judicial activism will accomplish that right or wrong?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 14:33||   2006-03-14 14:33|| Front Page Top

#37 Those examples, except for possibly abortion, are not examples of Judicial Activism but of the Courts making decisions based on Constitutional Law. The judges involved didn't take it upon themselves to read things into the constitution that are not there. The recent Kelo decision is, in my opinion, an example of Judicial Activism in that it seems clear to me the Constitution does not give Municipalities the right to seize private property and give it to another private entity soley for the purpose of generating tax revenue. To her credit, Justice O'conner disagreed with this decision but she is definately, to my mind, way out on a limb if she really believes the Judiciary is completely independant of the people and should not answer to them. That's what this whole thread should be discussing. I also believe there is no Constitutional guarentee to abortion. I believe it is morally wrong but none of the Government's busines what a woman does with her own body.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-03-14 14:47||   2006-03-14 14:47|| Front Page Top

#38 Cherry-picking "traditional" or anything else in an attempt to prove a point is counterproductive, Just Curious.

The 1950s? Let's return to the Constitution instead of the 1950s. I do believe THAT is the job of the Supreme Court. We have a Bill of Rights, let's use it. We can add new rights if the people choose, but let's have the people choose rather than leftist judicial activists choose. Once the people choose, let's be conservative about their choice until the people decide to choose otherwise.

A court full of leftist judicial activists is little more than dictatorship by committee.
Posted by Darrell 2006-03-14 15:12||   2006-03-14 15:12|| Front Page Top

#39 JC, the US Constitution has mandated equal protection under the law since 1868. Unfortunately, the Democrats -- using terrorism committed by the KKK -- imposed and maintained a set of laws mandating racial segregation.

Decisions striking down segregation weren't activism, but rather based on the law of the land. You want an example of judicial activism, look to the courts that uphold race-based preferences under the mealy-mouthed name "Affirmative Action" -- they're clearly in violation of the Constitution, yet judges somehow ignore the 14th Amendment to keep them around.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-14 15:19|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-14 15:19|| Front Page Top

#40 Darrell:

I'm not cherry picking. Those are ALL examples of what right wing conservatives call "liberal
judicial activism".

You really need to go back and read how right wing "conservative activst" judges have use the courts to throttle the things I mentioned above and implement their agenda on those and other issues.

btw: here is a recent quote for you from Talk Nation.

"We hear conservatives say that judges should not try to "legislate from the bench" the way
liberal jursist supposedly do. But a recent study
by Gerwitz and Golder of Yale University reveals that conservative justices such as Thomas and Scalia, have a far higher rate of invalidating or reinterpreting Congressional laws than justices more liberal like Byers and Ginsburg.
By this measure, too, the conservatives are more activist.

In sum, the right wing agrrandizers in black robes are neither strict constructionist nor balanced adjudicators. They are unrestrained power hustlers masqerading as as sober defenders of lawful procedure and constitutional intent."

I totally concur: enough said.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-14 15:36||   2006-03-14 15:36|| Front Page Top

#41 "Thomas and Scalia, have a far higher rate of invalidating or reinterpreting Congressional laws than justices more liberal like Byers and Ginsburg"

Probably some truth there, I mean all they have to do is stay awake and they will have done more than Ginsburg.
Posted by TomAnon 2006-03-14 16:00||   2006-03-14 16:00|| Front Page Top

#42 Invalidating a law that violates the Constitution isn't judicial activism. At least, it hasn't been since the early 1800's.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-14 16:29|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-14 16:29|| Front Page Top

#43 Darrell:

I guess "traditional" means:

Segregation of the races in public places

No civil rights laws against discrimination

No womens rights

No legal abortions

No rights for gays..

yes, lets return to the 1950's when everyone
knew their place.

Conservative judicial activism will accomplish that right or wrong?

JC, you're just as simplistic and stereotyping as any poster you accuse of the same failings. Amusing indeed.
Posted by Gleper Jaque6309 2006-03-14 17:26||   2006-03-14 17:26|| Front Page Top

#44 Just curious: If you're sincere (and not simply trolling), then you wouldn't mind telling us all (as a mere example) exactly WHERE in the US Constitution the (alleged) right to a Federal law protecting abortion exists? My reading of the Constitution finds the term "abortion" nowhere in the text--thus making abortion a states-rights issue rather than a *Federal* one.

(And please stick to the Constitution--its the only document that can be used to defend the FEDERAL right to abortion.)
Posted by Crusader 2006-03-14 17:51||   2006-03-14 17:51|| Front Page Top

#45 DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!!!!!!!!!

It only encourages them and makes them think they actually have something worthwhile to say.

Besides, the stink from the BS is getting unbearable.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-03-14 18:03|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-03-14 18:03|| Front Page Top

#46 I'm sure that Ruth Gator Bizzberg misses her female sleepover (while hearing testimony) partner.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-14 18:44||   2006-03-14 18:44|| Front Page Top

#47 "America is a Socialist nation moving towards Communism and OWG, and [God help us all], the Amer Lefties and Commies don't know how to stop it". Guess Clintonian Amerika and its LeftSocialist and Commie mainstream will have to help Mother Cindy to purge American Communist Socialism's unruly arrogant dishonest warmongering Male Brute Fascist fraction-minority, and call in the Motherly Commie Airborne Army Group = OWG US-based UNO Peacekeeping Force to save "occupied" Amerika from itself, again.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-14 22:02||   2006-03-14 22:02|| Front Page Top

#48 Looks like JM nails it again. :)
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-03-14 23:11||   2006-03-14 23:11|| Front Page Top

#49 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by mmurray821 2006-03-14 10:50||   2006-03-14 10:50|| Front Page Top

10:50 mmurray821
23:59 Snuns Thromp1484
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:49 phil_b
23:44 Snuns Thromp1484
23:41 DMFD
23:36 trailing wife
23:30 lotp
23:28 DMFD
23:27 Angump Slomosing6697
23:19 Formerly Dan
23:16 3dc
23:11 Inspector Clueso
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:34 BH
22:26 Frank G
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:24 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:54 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419
21:51 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com