• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Justice O'Connor warns of Dictatorship

H

hipsterdufus

Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship

NPR's Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story this morning about a talk that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High Court wouldn't allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that's a shame, because -- based on Totenberg's report -- every American needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a moderate and an American icon -- Bush v. Gore notwithstanding -- all but named names in thinly veiled attacks on former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and ended with a stunning warning.

O'Connor told her Georgetown audience that judges can make presidents, Congress and governors "really really mad," and that if judges don't make people angry, they aren't doing their job. But she said judicial effectiveness is "premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts." While hailing the American system of rights and privileges, she noted that these don't protect the judiciary, that "people do":
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002903.html

transcript here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.html
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pacridge said:
If she feels that way I wonder why she retired?
Hi Pacridge--it's because her husband is ill and she wants to take care of him. I think he may have cancer. I'm proud of her--she has her priorities straight.

It's not cancer:

Her husband of more than 50 years, John J. O'Connor, has been suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/resignation.supreme/
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
aps said:
Hi Pacridge--it's because her husband is ill and she wants to take care of him. I think he may have cancer. I'm proud of her--she has her priorities straight.

All I knew was I read she had no known health problems. The husbands health wasn't mentioned in the few articles I scanned. They all seemed focused on who might replace her. Then finally who did replace her.

I agree family should come first.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
O'connor was one of the few mistake Reagan made............She was a Conservative before she became a Justice on the SC and then became at best a moderate after she got her appointment...........I think RR would have liked to get that nomination back...........
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
O'connor was one of the few mistake Reagan made............She was a Conservative before she became a Justice on the SC and then became at best a moderate after she got her appointment...........I think RR would have liked to get that nomination back...........
Maybe Ronald Reagan chose her for her wisdom and ability over her party loyalty. Maybe it is impossible for someone to attain the status of Supreme Court justice and maintain true narrow ideological views. If it means anything to you, I think GWB has done well with his choices thus far.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Transcendental chutzpah! One of the members of what in the future will probably referred to as the "Legislative Supreme Court" has the the nerve to allege dictatorship!
 
H

hipsterdufus

Navy Pride said:
O'connor was one of the few mistake Reagan made............She was a Conservative before she became a Justice on the SC and then became at best a moderate after she got her appointment...........I think RR would have liked to get that nomination back...........
I agree with you but for different reasons. I'll never forgive her for succumbing to pressure and annointing GWB to the presidency in 2000. Her remarks are 6 years too late, and she's one of the reasons why.

I give RR credit for putting a woman on Scotus - truthfully, at the time, there weren't a lot of quality picks for him to chose from.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
I'll never forgive her for succumbing to pressure and annointing GWB to the presidency in 2000.
The Supreme Court merely told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't continue recounting ballots in defiance of established State electoral law. They did not annoint anyone, and even had the recounts continued George Bush would have won.

Even the liberal press has conceded that, as per this CNN Special Report.

Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.
...
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago study was commissioned by eight media companies -- The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers.
Clinging to the 'selected, not elected' mantra is really quite futile, as it requires people to ignore the facts of the matter. We should applaud Justices, even fringe-liberals such as O'Connor, when they succumb to the pressure to uphold the law.

Sandra Day O'Connor said:
if judges don't make people angry, they aren't doing their job
Bless President Bush for nominating less-shallow persons to the US Supreme Court. We hardly need the mentality of Serranos and other pop "artists" guiding our Judiciary.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Carl said:
The Supreme Court merely told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't continue recounting ballots in defiance of established State electoral law.
The United States Supreme Court has no business ruling on state electoral law. Their concern is the United States Constitution, and there is nothing in the Constitution that can possibly be construed as supporting their decision.

It was a prime example of judicial activism.

Carl said:
They did not annoint anyone, and even had the recounts continued George Bush would have won.
So having the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution to pick the president is fine with you, as long as he probably would've won anyway? Who needs to have silly elections at all?
 
H

hipsterdufus

Carl said:
The Supreme Court merely told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't continue recounting ballots in defiance of established State electoral law. They did not annoint anyone, and even had the recounts continued George Bush would have won.

Even the liberal press has conceded that, as per this CNN Special Report.

Clinging to the 'selected, not elected' mantra is really quite futile, as it requires people to ignore the facts of the matter.
I'm not "clinging" to this, but we don't forget...

Even the report you cited, says that the study wasn't conclusive, but I make the case that this wasn't the main reason.

The biggest problem for Gore was the votes that were thrown out. That probably cost Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes and would have substantially tipped the scales of justice to a Bush victory.

This ballot cost Gore the election:



and SCOTUS threw out any chance to dispute it.

It might as well have been this:


Take a look at what you cited:

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.
 
Last edited:

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
The United States Supreme Court has no business ruling on state electoral law.
The Supreme Court entertained an argument that Gore's team should be permitted to violate State electoral law. They ruled that being a Democrat did not place you above the law.

I hardly think there was any "activism" involved in demanding lawful behavior. New laws were not created from the bench, existing laws were not overturned from the bench, new rights were not divined from the bench.

Rather, the parties involved were required to adhere to existing law.

Further research by a coalition of rabid Gore supporters was unable to find enough evidence even to create spin or distortion as to who the actual victor would have been. This matter is settled for those who have even a modicum of intellectual honesty.

hipsterdufus said:
The biggest problem for Gore was the votes that were thrown out.
I assume you have merely forgotten the thousands of overseas Military absentee ballots the Gore team had nullified...

You may argue the matter all you want. It makes no difference, there are no critics of any credibility that contend that Bush did not fairly defeat Gore in 2000. Not to mention the entire point is long since rendered moot by the election of 2004.
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mixedmedia said:
Maybe Ronald Reagan chose her for her wisdom and ability over her party loyalty. Maybe it is impossible for someone to attain the status of Supreme Court justice and maintain true narrow ideological views. If it means anything to you, I think GWB has done well with his choices thus far.
Sorry but when she was on the appeals court she always made conservative rulings.......She was actually pro life at one time...............

That does surprise me and I am glad to hear that.......I hope you don't change your mind later.......
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Carl said:
The Supreme Court entertained an argument that Gore's team should be permitted to violate State electoral law. They ruled that being a Democrat did not place you above the law.

I hardly think there was any "activism" involved in demanding lawful behavior. New laws were not created from the bench, existing laws were not overturned from the bench, new rights were not divined from the bench.

Rather, the parties involved were required to adhere to existing law.

Further research by a coalition of rabid Gore supporters was unable to find enough evidence even to create spin or distortion as to who the actual victor would have been. This matter is settled for those who have even a modicum of intellectual honesty.



I assume you have merely forgotten the thousands of overseas Military absentee ballots the Gore team had nullified...

You may argue the matter all you want. It makes no difference, there are no critics of any credibility that contend that Bush did not fairly defeat Gore in 2000. Not to mention the entire point is long since rendered moot by the election of 2004.
Actually, the Supreme Court based their decision on Bush v. Gore on the 14th Amendment. Strangely enough, their decision stated that this interpretation of the Constitution would be used just this once, but could not be used in the future.

Many people claim that Bush used the Supreme Court to cheat Gore out of a victory in Florida, but actually, it was the other way around. Gore was attemping to use the Florida Supreme Court to cheat Bush out of the victory. Therefore, Bush was right to take this to the next level which was the US Supreme Court.

If people want to complain about electoral hanky panky in Florida, this is not a good venue to make a case on. They should concentrate on the Jim Crow felon lists, which took away the right to vote from many blacks in Florida who had not committed any crime, except to have names which were similar to others who were felons..
 

Synch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
564
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think she considered this to be too serious, or she wouldn't have retired, yes her husband is suffering, but does family come before your country? During the civil war brothers fought against each other on the battlefield for the idealogy they believed in, I don't think he speech holds much value because she retired, unecessarily for personal reasons.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
They should concentrate on the Jim Crow felon lists, which took away the right to vote from many blacks in Florida who had not committed any crime, except to have names which were similar to others who were felons..
Testimony Shows No Suppression

None of three black voters called as witnesses before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, investigating charges of a "conspiracy" to block minority voters, could show yesterday that they had been denied their right to vote in the Nov. 7 election.

The key leadoff witnesses -John Nelson, the Rev. Willie D. Whiting and Roberta Tucker, all of Tallahassee - testified under oath that they had concerns and had read about problems concerning voter irregularities, but that all of them had voted at their polling precincts.

Mr. Nelson said he saw unmanned police cars near separate polling precincts on Election Day and thought that was "unusual." Mr. Whiting said his name had been purged from the voting rolls after he had wrongly been identified as a felon, but he was allowed to vote after a call to an election supervisor. Miss Tucker said she was stopped at a police roadblock near a polling place, but she was allowed to proceed after producing a valid driver's license.

The commission, which voted unanimously last month to investigate accusations by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of widespread voter fraud involving minorities, could not explain why no witnesses were called to verify the accusations.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Or how about the democratic party throwing out absentee ballots from military people serving overseas......

The SCOTUS had no choice bu to stop the vote in Florida.......The Florida Supreme court (all dems) ruled that the count could go on in the 59 different counties using 59 different standards to interpret how a voters intent............That obviously ciolated the 14th amendment...........
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Carl said:
The Supreme Court entertained an argument that Gore's team should be permitted to violate State electoral law. They ruled that being a Democrat did not place you above the law.
What part of "The US Supreme Court has no business ruling on state electoral laws" did you not understand? Whether the Florida Supreme Court ruled correctly or not, they were entitled to have the final say on the matter. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that can warrant getting the US Supreme Court involved.

Carl said:
I hardly think there was any "activism" involved in demanding lawful behavior. New laws were not created from the bench, existing laws were not overturned from the bench, new rights were not divined from the bench.

Rather, the parties involved were required to adhere to existing law.
What part of the US Constitution did the SCOTUS require them to adhere to, that the lower court did not? Please show me the clause or amendment that was violated by the lower court's ruling.

Carl said:
Further research by a coalition of rabid Gore supporters was unable to find enough evidence even to create spin or distortion as to who the actual victor would have been. This matter is settled for those who have even a modicum of intellectual honesty.
The main issue is not who would've won without the Supreme Court intervention; it's the fact that the Supreme Court DID intervene when it had no business doing so, to ensure that their candidate won.

Carl said:
I assume you have merely forgotten the thousands of overseas Military absentee ballots the Gore team had nullified...
Since I haven't claimed otherwise, I fail to see what this proves.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
What part of "The US Supreme Court has no business ruling on state electoral laws" did you not understand?
Well, I understood it to be an empty assertion on the part of an internet forum contributor. Considering that in fact the parties involved escalated it to the Supreme Court intentionally, through mechanisms that ensured it would be heard by the Supreme Court, I gave your empty assertion faint credence. Clearly, the involved legal advocates intended it to become a Federal issue, and had the opinion that it should be a Federal issue.


I focused on the reality of what actually obtained. Which was not an "annointment", but rather an admonition to observe the law.

As we go forward, please understand that I'm not likely to simply follow along down any obfuscatory or irrelevant tangent that you might offer. Instead, I will most probably stick to what actually *is* in the world. Reality, if you will.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Carl said:
Well, I understood it to be an empty assertion on the part of an internet forum contributor. Considering that in fact the parties involved escalated it to the Supreme Court intentionally, through mechanisms that ensured it would be heard by the Supreme Court, I gave your empty assertion faint credence. Clearly, the involved legal advocates intended it to become a Federal issue, and had the opinion that it should be a Federal issue.


I focused on the reality of what actually obtained. Which was not an "annointment", but rather an admonition to observe the law.

As we go forward, please understand that I'm not likely to simply follow along down any obfuscatory or irrelevant tangent that you might offer. Instead, I will most probably stick to what actually *is* in the world. Reality, if you will.
OK, then perhaps you can show me the reality in the US Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right to rule on elections. Furthermore, perhaps you can show me the reality in the US Constitution that would lead the Supreme Court to the conclusion that they reached.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Or how about the democratic party throwing out absentee ballots from military people serving overseas......

The SCOTUS had no choice bu to stop the vote in Florida.......The Florida Supreme court (all dems) ruled that the count could go on in the 59 different counties using 59 different standards to interpret how a voters intent............That obviously ciolated the 14th amendment...........
So they could've ruled that Florida must set a uniform standard for recounting the votes. They had no business to take it upon themselves to tell them to stop the recount altogether.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
So they could've ruled that Florida must set a uniform standard for recounting the votes.
Florida already had a uniform standard, which had already been violated several times by the Gore team.

Kandahar said:
OK, then perhaps you can show me the reality in the US Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right to rule on elections. Furthermore, perhaps you can show me the reality in the US Constitution that would lead the Supreme Court to the conclusion that they reached.
They ruled on whether it was okay to defy the law, because you're Al Gore. They decided that wasn't sufficient justification.

As to the rest, I feel no need to continue. You may comfort yourself with the idea that you and a handful of others are the only ones that see the true injustice of the situation. It makes no practical difference, it's history.

As such, any further controversy between you and I on the matter is meaningless, and I have no intention to post endlessly on things that have no meaning.

George Bush is President. If you have something else to discuss apart from that fact, perhaps we will converse again.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Carl said:
They ruled on whether it was okay to defy the law, because you're Al Gore. They decided that wasn't sufficient justification.
Oh that's what they ruled on? Funny, I don't remember ever reading any reference to Al Gore in the US Constitution. Thanks for playing. :2wave:
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
Funny, I don't remember ever reading any reference to Al Gore in the US Constitution.
It's right there next to the part that establishes the 55 mph speed limit on highways.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Carl said:
It's right there next to the part that establishes the 55 mph speed limit on highways.
...which is also unconstitutional. Judicial activism is ridiculous; what's the point of even HAVING a damn Constitution if we're going to ignore it whenever we feel like it?
 
Top Bottom