Sandra Day O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts

O’Conner blasted Republican leaders who criticize the judiciary as a threat to the Constitutional freedoms of all Americans.

npr (Audio available)

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed Thursday that she's not absent from judicial issues. During a speech in Washington, she said Republican leaders' attacks on the courts threaten the constitutional freedoms of Americans.

From the Audio:

“We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” - SDO

I'm glad she's speaking up! I don't think she really wanted to leave the supreme court. I think she was kind of concerned about what would happen when she did. but I think she would have left earlier if it wasn't for all this and well, just got to the point where she couldn't do it anymore.

I hope many heed her warnings

The supreme court is not sufficiently reflecting American values when it only toes to the left and ignores the concerns and interests of moderates and right-wingers. Day-O'Connor has the right to her opinions and I'm glad she expressed them but as always from the left it is one sided only.

Interesting that she is now voicing her personal views that actually are very truth.

I was waiting for her to write a book.

I imagine that as a women justice he has gone through a lot of pressure.

But she has a good point not that we have not seen what goes on and how politicians that are in power or leaders bring their personal agendas and tried to impose them on others.

How can O'connor say anything about the courts when she left the Supreme at a time when 'they' (the people she is railing against) were the ones who'd put in her successor??

Poppycock! Activist judges who eschew objective interpretations of the law to "legislate from the bench" are the greatest threat to American freedom. O'Connor is a brilliant, dignified woman, but I would hope that the era of her brand of jurisprudence is drawing to a close.

I notice that 'activist judges' are usually little more than judges that people don't agree with. How is O'connor really an activist judge, acting beyond the bounds of the intent of the founders? Also, why don't we also worry about activist presidents, who go beyond the intent of the founders, for that matter (and this isn't some jab at bush)

I keep hearing/seeing comments about the danger that 'activist judges', 'legislating from the bench' pose to 'American freedoms'.

I do not buy the argument, but I find it interesting that these claims are made, since most of the judgments by these 'activists' tend to favor individual freedoms such as the freedom of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

Curious that judges that favor individual freedom are deemed a danger to freedom...

If you've ever had to deal with the severe, chronic illness of a family member, you know just how much it can overshadow everything else in your life. Ms. O'Connor's husband has late-stage Alzheimer's disease. She left to take care of him.

As someone who detests the theofascism that is rampant in America today, I hated to see Sandra Day leave the court. Although she was a conservative, at least she wasn't a wacko like Scalia, Thomas, or Alito. But I can't fault her for putting a loved one ahead of her job, even when her job is keeping the country from becoming another Iran with religious freaks making the rules.

By the way, if abortion really is murder, does that mean women who abort should get the death penalty? If not, then how can it really be murder? Either it is or it isn't.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I notice that 'activist judges' are usually little more than judges that people don't agree with.

If activist judge is a term you are not comfortable with to describe a judge who imposes a systematic agenda when handing down rulings, find another that suits you and apply it. I'm not going to peruse O'Connor's rulings to cite here, but that is the kind of jurisprudence that she is defending and most Americans disapprove of the practice even if they might find pleasing any given ruling so rendered.

[edit on 2006/3/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The supreme court is not sufficiently reflecting American values when it only toes to the left and ignores the concerns and interests of moderates and right-wingers.

Actually Sandra Day O'Connor is a moderate conservative. See her biography.

as always from the left it is one sided only.

As opposed to the stuff that comes from the right, which is objective, non-partisan and good for all concerned?

Originally posted by Nygdan
How can O'connor say anything about the courts when she left the Supreme at a time when 'they' (the people she is railing against) were the ones who'd put in her successor??

"They" (Ronald Reagan) put her in 25 years ago. She's not railing against them because they're republicans, she's doing it because she sees a threat, regardless of what political party stands behind it.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but after 25 years on the bench, I think she has a right to say whatever she wants. And I happen to agree with her strongly here. We need more like her.

Well, I do not care to move this thread too far off base, so I do not plan to discuss it much further.

My observation is that the by far majority of people who make the 'activist judges' claim do so only in cases of judgments favoring individual freedom.

When judgments are handed down that allow indefinite detention without trial, or secret searches of homes and business, or many other suppressions of individual freedom, the 'activist judges' crowd is strangely silent.

When is someone who can't be labeled a "former something or other" going to speak out?. This woman was on this court when it opted to appoint GW in 00'. I don't care what she has to say now!. Someone speak up before all the horses are out of the barn. circumvention editedCOWARDS !

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

it's a strange world we live in, isn't it? our personal freedom has become the greatest threat to our freedom???

I don't know, when the legislature holds emergency meetings to circumvent the decisions made by the judicial branch to "save Terri", how is this not being an activist legislature??

or when the president signs a bill, like he did the law that again forbid torture, how was he not being an activist executive when he says immediately afterwards that he has no intention of obeying the law he just signed?
as far as the "activist judges" are concerned....when was roe vs wade passed, or the school prayer issue? these seem to be the two main gripes, but just when were they passed, decades ago!! these aren't "agenda's" anymore, and were any of the sitting members of the supreme court present when the laws were interpreted in such manner. once decided on, well, that gives basis for future decisions. so, how can you say that our current judicial members are following an agenda when they are just carrying on the decisions of their predecessors. Seems to me, the "agenda" would be those who are intent on turning back time, and removing the decisions that have already been made, wouldn't it??



seems to me, that the best we could possibly come up here with is that both the far left and the far right have agendas and being very much activists in promoting it...it's just that the far right has the reigns right now and seem to be venturing way beyond any previous excursion has gone to get their "agenda" into the mainstream society.

Originally posted by YIAWETA
This woman was on this court when it opted to appoint GW in 00'.

What does this mean?

[edit on 2006/3/10 by GradyPhilpott]