Slashdot Mirror
Justice O'Connor Retiring
rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."
OK, i'm too lazy too look it up; someone want to get some karma by posting her vote on recent controversial issues?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
It is about time we can get some fresh blood into the SC. Let's just hope they can actually put someone good in that is young and can actually grasp today's technology better.
-- Yes, I work for the government, and yes I am watching you.
"O'Connor should be remembered as one of the worst contributors to American jurisprudence in recent history. She was notorious as a "swing vote," equally maddening to Left and Right at various times. But she consistently held one of the most expansionist views of judicial power, committed always to the most capacious version of the Court's authority over American life. A few years ago I told my students my "O'Connor rule" for saving oneself a lot of trouble: If the Court has declared anything unconstitutional, and the vote was 5-4, and the fifth vote was provided by O'Connor, the case was wrongly decided. Reading the opinions is necessary only to confirm that judgment."
Crow T. Trollbot
I'd be all for this, except that the people fighting for removal of "Judicial Activism" invariable turn out to be highly conservative types who are pissed off that some Judge said they couldn't hold christian revivals in the local public schools during school hours and stuff like that. When judgements go their way, even if they expand judicial powers, they stay quiet.
It's the same tactic as repeating the phrase "Liberal Media bias" over and over and hope that people start to believe it. The sad thing is that it works and we see a gradual shifting of the media from the center to the right to compensate for this percieved imbalance. The whole position that the media is liberal and activist is rediculous when you realize that they're just parroting GOP talking points and prepackaged news reports without even offering countering views so much of the time.
I read the internet for the articles.
This may make your brain explode, but it's not my fault if it does.
Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.
Damn that Ted Kennedy!
If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked. Because I don't think the Senate will take anyone the RIAA is against, someone who is pro-people, someone who is anti big buisness. Bush pused to do away with the 40 hour work week, by killing overtime pay. I can just imagine what the future holds- the 6 day work week, 9 hours a day. I am suprised buisnesses have not started selling advertising space in their offices. I can just see an spreadsheet open on the bottom 3/4ths of a monitor, with an advertisment on the top 1/4th.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
This administration really specializes in finding extreme-right appointees that are members of minority groups.
Look, this memo was written by hispanic Albert Gonzales! The choice bits: "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
That certainly would look good under Supreme Court letterhead, wouldn't it!
According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.
The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.
Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Can I help it if two perfectly good words, "fundamentalist" and "liberal" are so commonly mis-used? A Justice who is a Constitutional Fundamentalist (one could only hope) would greatly support personal liberty, and would therefore be a liberal in the original sense of that word. The abiguity is legitimate.
Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life, which isn't conservative at all in the original sense of *that* word. Hey, I can't help thinking this way, I'm a linguistic fundamentalist! (Although the ice cream thing sounds good, too.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
By definition, the Supreme Court is filling in the gaps where the law isn't clear. If there was a clear cut way to decide the case, it would have been.
It's a misunderstanding to think of the Supreme Court as the "Championship" level of the Legal System. You don't get to appeal because you lost a case. Your appeal has to either prove an error on the part of the proceedings, or some novel question of law. SCOTUS acts like that wizened old Engineer whose been around since the start of the project, and elaborates on details that elude all the lower levels of problem solvers.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Very interesintg.
Do you know if there is a list of Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more liberal jsutice were sitting in O'Connor's seat? That would be interesting too.
A lot of people are complaining about parent characterizing this court as "center-left". Look at the username for a hint why. Dagny Taggart is a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. This means that parent's conception of "right" and "left" is probably the Randian individualism vs. communism.
Just because neo-cons evolved from right-wingers doesn't mean that they're not communist. A state-backed and state-helped "private" corporation is no better than a state-run industry. If "private" corporations can use eminent domain - a power of the state - then aren't the state and the corporations the same thing - a feature of a Communist government?
Prior to Roe vs. Wade, back in the 40's - 60's a lot of Christian fundamentalists were liberal democrats because of the part of Chritianity that supports "social justice". A lot of the whites involved in civil rights were christians (from the north) who believed that discrimination is wrong. For example, quakers and other groups. The republicans were mostly aligned with the rich and big business which is why they typically were not winning elections prior to 1968.
The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.
By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.
Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.
To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I disagree. O'Connor is a moderate politically, but an activist judge. She sometimes comes down on the side of the right, and sometimes the left, but almost always making law that didn't exist before.
Example 1: The death penalty for minors. Where in the Constitution does it say that the death penalty can't be used on minors? It's a perfect example of something that should be left up to the states. As justification, the majority in that decision used international laws (wtf?) and some kind of "evolving standards". That is not rule of law, that is rule of man (or woman, in this case).
Example 2: Roe v. Wade. Let me say that I believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. However, I am against the decision for two reasons: first, it should be up to the states, and second, if it is national law, why not let the legislature make the law? The Constitution does not state anywhere that abortion is illegal. 5 judges of 9 decided that for the whole nation. If it should be a right, try to get an Amendment passed. Otherwise, it's up to the states (or at least the legislature).
We live in a nation where the rule of law should apply. You should know in advance whether you're breaking the law or not, in plain english. Even 4 Supreme Court justices don't know that you're breaking the law? That's the abysmal state of our legal system right now. In reality, they fabricate the law where it doesn't exist, and interpret the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of what it says because of a chain of precendents each using odd reasoning and ignoring the implications.
You can give me a million good reasons why it's a good idea to require registration and waiting periods for guns, and to impose all kinds of restrictions on the sale, transportation, manufacture, and so forth. But it's all unconstitutional, plain as day. The 2nd Amendment does't say "the right of the militia" it says "the right of the people". It's unqualified permission for any person in the United States to keep and bear arms. Of course responsibility comes with that, and if you are threatening people, you go to jail, where you lose all kinds of rights. But the Supreme Court is too smart and clever to read the simple sentence, they use all kinds of strange logical constructs and legal BS to ignore the text.
Now we have stupid rulings where it's legal to have the 10 Commandments in Texas but not in Kentucky. One place it's Constitutional and the other place not? I hear all kinds of political BS every day, and all of it is "protected speech" (even if paid for by the taxpayers), but if someone gives it the magical label "religious" it is now "unconstitutional speech". What deserves the label "religious" vs. something else? Judges, primarily.
In other words, we live in a land ruled by man, not law.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
So, Bush II gets to appoint two new Justices. Doubtless he'll pick them based on their past conservative decisions, only to have them become raving looney liberals as soon as they're confirmed.
Meanwhile, Hillary becomes the next President, and Bill becomes Secretary General of the UN.
Congress remains Republican.
And the great game continues.
668: Neighbour of the Beast