Thursday, July 14, 2005
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Announces Retirement: The Punisher says “Good Riddance"
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court. While the media has been giving you the spin about the “moderate” conservative role and the “swing vote” role O’Connor has played on the Court I’d like to sum up her career for you. I’m sure this is how the history books will remember her regardless of the love-fest she’s receiving today.
The first legacy of Justice O’Connor is that she is the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't take that away from her.
The second legacy of Justice O’Connor is that she joined the Majority in a little case called Bush v. Gore. In that case, Justice O’Connor who had stated that she wanted a Republican to win the election in 2000 so that she could retire and a Republican could appoint her successor, joined with 4 other Republican members of the court to pervert American jurisprudence and appoint George W. Bush as President of the United States. Thus assuring that she could retire and a Republican President could appoint her successor. The outrage over Bush v. Gore was so great from both Conservative and Liberal Legal Scholars that Justice O’Connor decided to wait until after the 2004 election to retire.
This partisan political maneuvering from a Supreme Court Justice is pathetic and will go down as the legacy of Justice O’Connor. A Judge who was so concerned with her political party she was willing to pervert the rule of law and ignore precedent so that her party could appoint her successor.
But we should not be surprised by Justice O’Connor’s unethical and moral ambiguity. One of my favorite opinions by Justice O’Connor sums up her approach to the bench very well. It is her concurring opinion in a case called Employment Division vs. Smith.
“The Court Today… departs from well-settled jurisprudence… gives a strained reading of the First Amendment… disregards our free exercise doctrine… misconstrues precedent… judges the vitality of constitutional doctrine by looking to the win-loss records of plaintiffs… denies plaintiffs the opportunity to make legal arguments… raises a parade of horribles not at issue… and denigrates the very purpose of the bill of rights. I agree” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
And now the Democrats say she's the model of the type of Judge they want to replace her. God help us.
****
The first legacy of Justice O’Connor is that she is the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't take that away from her.
The second legacy of Justice O’Connor is that she joined the Majority in a little case called Bush v. Gore. In that case, Justice O’Connor who had stated that she wanted a Republican to win the election in 2000 so that she could retire and a Republican could appoint her successor, joined with 4 other Republican members of the court to pervert American jurisprudence and appoint George W. Bush as President of the United States. Thus assuring that she could retire and a Republican President could appoint her successor. The outrage over Bush v. Gore was so great from both Conservative and Liberal Legal Scholars that Justice O’Connor decided to wait until after the 2004 election to retire.
This partisan political maneuvering from a Supreme Court Justice is pathetic and will go down as the legacy of Justice O’Connor. A Judge who was so concerned with her political party she was willing to pervert the rule of law and ignore precedent so that her party could appoint her successor.
But we should not be surprised by Justice O’Connor’s unethical and moral ambiguity. One of my favorite opinions by Justice O’Connor sums up her approach to the bench very well. It is her concurring opinion in a case called Employment Division vs. Smith.
“The Court Today… departs from well-settled jurisprudence… gives a strained reading of the First Amendment… disregards our free exercise doctrine… misconstrues precedent… judges the vitality of constitutional doctrine by looking to the win-loss records of plaintiffs… denies plaintiffs the opportunity to make legal arguments… raises a parade of horribles not at issue… and denigrates the very purpose of the bill of rights. I agree” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
And now the Democrats say she's the model of the type of Judge they want to replace her. God help us.
****
# posted by The Punisher @ Thursday, July 14, 2005 
