O'Connor attacks DeLayfor targeting U.S. judges

[WanderAimlessly]

I guess she does not believe in the freedom of speech and also the checks and balances of the Constitution:

O’Connor attacks DeLayfor targeting U.S. judges
Retired justice links impeachment call during Schiavo case to court violence
Posted: March 10, 2006
5:42 p.m. Eastern
@ 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

  WASHINGTON – Recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor yesterday blasted Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, for calling for judicial accountability and impeachment of judges during the heat of the Terri Schiavo case.

“I want you to tune your ears to these attacks,” O’Connor told a conference of corporate attorneys at the Georgetown University Law Center. “You have an obligation to speak up.”

Full Story PF

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

O’Connor cited two deadly attacks last year in Chicago and Atlanta as violence that may have been prompted by the calls for judicial accountability.

Really, Judge O’Connor? Are calls to throw politicians out of office also incitement to violence?

 

[gilliam]

Gabriel Gale:

Really, Judge O’Connor? Are calls to throw politicians out of office also incitement to violence?

Something happens to people when you give them tons of power and put them in Washington.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

gilliam:

Something happens to people when you give them tons of power and put them in Washington.

Fortunately, she is now out of power.

This is why the judiciary needs to be reigned in and the only way that will be able to be done is through admendments to the Constitution. All other means will be declared unconstitutional by the judicial activists.

PF

 

[Horab]

gilliam:

Something happens to people when you give them tons of power and put them in Washington.

yep, that’s what i thought, she comes off as arrogant, as if anyone should dare to criticize her.

the judical branch should be the weakest of the three branches of government since judges are the least accountable

these judges she talked about being attacked had nothing at all to do with tom deLay

reagan’s worst mistake

 

[Joe_Kelley]

WanderAimlessly:

Fortunately, she is now out of power.

This is why the judiciary needs to be reigned in and the only way that will be able to be done is through admendments to the Constitution. All other means will be declared unconstitutional by the judicial activists.

PF

A couple of judicious impeachments would do wonders. However:

1. Congress doesn’t have the guts to do it.

or

1. Congress prefers to have the Court make the hard decisions and get Congress off the hook. [That leaves Congress free to second guess Executive actions. It appears to me that Congressmen would much prefer to get some TV exposure by holding hearings, to risking voter wrath by enacting effective laws.]

 

[BioCatholic]

Horab:

the judical branch should be the weakest of the three branches of government since judges are the least accountable

you absolutely have to be kidding, right? the whole point of an independant judiciary is to remove judges from political pressures of interpreting the Constitution and adjuticating cases. the point is to uphold the Constitution and Law, even if Congress and the President see fit to violate it. state legislatures and courts as well.

the People have 2 means to regulate the Judiciary. “Establishing” or “Ordaining” (giving them powers to hear types of cases) the courts through Congress, and through Constitutional Amendment (providing them with acceptable framework to rule from).

the first option may be superceeded by the Supreme Court itself if it conflict with the Constitution, but the second may not be. that is why it takes 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of all states for an Amendment, so that it is abolutely sure that it is what an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans want.

Tom Delay’s statements bordered on criminal. if most people made those types of statements, you can be sure US Marshalls would have made an arrest. Tom was miffed that the Judiciary didnt call it the way he wanted, and he threw a tantrum.

people label judges as “activist” when they dont rule how they like. And what do we label a Legislature that strips Florida courts of 200 years jurisprudence, and then seeks to “Ordain” Federal courts with a matter clearly reserved for States by the Constitution? Congress has ZERO authority to decide what Florida Courts can and cannot hear, and has ZERO authority to decide their adjutication was wrong. show me where in the Constitution it says Congress may “Establish and Ordain” State courts? The “Supremacy Clause” does not apply with regard to Congress’ authority to Ordain courts.

“Legislate from the Bench” is what Bush calls it for the courts, so how about “Presiding from the Floor” for Legislators that deem themselves capable of adjuticating Case Law?

 

[gilliam]

BioCatholic:

the first option may be superceeded by the Supreme Court itself if it conflict with the Constitution, but the second may not be. that is why it takes 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of all states for an Amendment, so that it is abolutely sure that it is what an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans want.

Vs five people in black robes sitting on a high bench in an ornate room in Washington, DC?

 

[Vladd44]

Perhaps you should consider the reality that Terri was DEAD already. Her Brain was nothing more then mush. You cant kill someone who is already dead.

Perhaps Delay should have went with Abramoff to swindle another Indian tribe instead of grandstanding for people who seem to care a lot about a child… but only before it is born. Instead of being so wrapped up in an event that you on your own cannot change, consider the 15 million children who starve to death each year. You don’t need a court change to make that happen. I doubt too many mothers will refuse you the ability to feed their starving children.

 

[halmac1930]

gilliam:

Something happens to people when you give them tons of power and put them in Washington.

How true. The altruistic beliefs they proclaim end once they become indoctrinated into our political system.

The ideas and suggestions they used to get elected are soon forgotten when the power of the office surfaces.

Plao said that Democracy, as a form of Govt., had to be watched closely. The officials elected bear even a closer scrutiny.

 

[didymus]

BioCatholic:

you absolutely have to be kidding, right? the whole point of an independant judiciary is to remove judges from political pressures of interpreting the Constitution and adjuticating cases. the point is to uphold the Constitution and Law, even if Congress and the President see fit to violate it. state legislatures and courts as well.

Amen, brother!
In A MAn for All Seasons there’s a scene where Thomas More’s son-in-law says he would chop down all the trees (meaning the laws) in England to leave the Devil noplace to hide. Sir Thomas the asks him, but then where will you hide when the Devil comes for you?

The judiciary have plenty to answer for, but demagogs in Congress have done huge damage to the respect that the public needs to have for the judiciary for the system to function.

And let’s not forget that while we’re all hung up on the Supreme Court and appeals courts, citizens are robbed of their most basic rights every day at the bottom of the sytem, in trial courts.