Edging Towards Totalitarianism
It seems that Sandra Day O’Connor threw a hissy fit because politicians have dared question some of the assinine rulings of the Supreme Court. It seems that she’s hinting that we’re edging towards a dictatorship. It seems more like she’s getting paranoid in her old age.
Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the [S]upreme [C]ourt, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party’s right-wingers 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.
———-
“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.”
Thank goodness that she’s issued her last ruling. She’s whining about people who’ve challenged some of the worst, most illogical rulings the Supreme Court’s ever been associated with. She whines about Congress speaking out about worthless jurisprudence but doesn’t say a thing about the rulings where the liberal justices and the incoherent justices don’t pay attention to precedent or the Constitution itself.
O’Connor doesn’t even rail against the justices who rationalize their rulings by citing foreign rulings. As I’ve said before, it’s one thing for a politician to consider foreign statutes if that politician thinks it makes sense. A justice, however, is supposed to pay attention to the laws on the books, the Constitution and its amendments and any relevant treaties that have been signed and ratified.
To make rulings that create laws or that gut legislation that’s been debated, passed and signed into law by the sitting president because these justices have different policy preferences isn’t just unconscienable. It’s a usurpation of the Legislative Branch’s constitutionally enumerated powers.
The last I looked, the Constitution’s Preamble started with “We, the people”, not “We, the 9 unelected and unaccountable justices”. How dare these justices take legislative matters into their hands. That’s hardly a system of checks and balances. Checks, possibly, but definitely not accompanied by balances. It’s a shameful sight to see.
Justice O’Connor decries politicians who criticize justices but then she ignores all the times when these same justices overturn longstanding laws that have been on the books for 20+ years, like they did in Lawrence v. Texas, ruling that that state’s anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional. They ignored starei decisis there but when it comes to Roe v. Wade, that’s an entirely different situation.
In other words, Justice O’Connor thinks that justices shouldn’t have their actions questioned and anyone who criticizes them undermines the entire judiciary. It sounds like Justice O’Connor doesn’t think justices should be accountable even though they’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Instead of upholding the Constitution, they’ve seen fit to rule in a rather arbitrary fashion until the Constitution, in O’Connor’s mind, is whatever 5 justices says it says. That isn’t jurisprudence. It’s hubris and chutzpah.
Thankfully, we’re restocking the Supreme Court with justices that actually adhere to the Constitution instead of making rulings that have nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
March 16th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Why do retired Presidents and retired Supreme Court Justices always believe they can make controversial statements? They just can’t help themselves.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:14 am
The lady never was bound by precident or by the Constitution. Whatever felt right was how she decided issues before the Court. She now is reaping the fruit that she planted interms of the revulsion the public has for judges who can’t understand their role in the US Government scheme of things. We’re indeed lucky that she’s finally retired… and that George W. Bush is committed to constructionalists.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:40 am
[...] [Justice O’Connor, although she dissented from the Court’s categorical ruling in Roper, agreed with the Court on the relevance of “foreign and international law to [an] assessment of evolving standards of decency.” The other dissenters, for whom Justice Scalia spoke, vigorously contended that foreign and international law have no place in determining what punishments are “cruel and unusual” within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.].” Speaking of O’Connor, thankfully she is off the court now as well. However, I would prefer her verses Ginsburg. Then again California Conservative puts it this way about her. O’Connor doesn’t even rail against the justices who rationalize their rulings by citing foreign rulings. As I’ve said before, it’s one thing for a politician to consider foreign statutes if that politician thinks it makes sense. A justice, however, is supposed to pay attention to the laws on the books, the Constitution and its amendments and any relevant treaties that have been signed and ratified. [...]
March 16th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Typical moonbat logic: we decide something is a special way because that’s the way we would like it to be (no matter what nature says). Now that we’ve set the ball in motion, why are the results different from what we expected? Let’s keep driving this idiocy further into society because we know it’ll succeed some day.
Admittedly, some fringe conservatives look at life that way, too, but the vast majority of conservatives will look at results tested against reality, and adjust accordingly. Moonbats just keep on hammering away at their theoretical nonsense.
Hello, Sandra Day? This is earth. When you put new rules in place that have nothing to do with reality (reality is that there are bad and evil people who don’t give a rip about your “rule of law”), then some people aware of reality start carping on you because of your idiocy, you deserve it.
Gary, you’re right on: the judiciary is supposed to decide matters of law, not social intent, by deciding on what the law says, not what they wish it says.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
RUTH GINSBURG: DEATH THREAT FAULT OF REPUBLICANS
Sup Ct Justice says Republicans who oppose foreign law “fuel the irrational fringe”. Ginsburg suggested the [death] threat was prompted by bills introduced by Republicans in Congress.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
[...] It should go without saying that it’s a terrible thing for any public official to receive a threat of violence. But the idea that mere criticism of public officials, even including judges, should be stigmatized or prohibited in any way cuts at the heart of the ideal of free speech. Now-retired Justice O’Connor also gave a speech recently where she criticized the criticism of the judicial branch. From the California Conservative blog: Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the [S]upreme [C]ourt, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party’s right-wingers continue to attack the judiciary. [...]