November 29, 2006


“O’Connor: Don’t call us ‘activist judges’”

Filed under: SCOTUS
By Steve Dillard (Email) @ 5:06 pm

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”


Nobody Has Trackbacked Yet

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2174/trackback

4 Rebel Yells to ““O’Connor: Don’t call us ‘activist judges’””

  1. scipio Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    is this criticism not a direct result of her penchant to discard the constitution for the sake of “pragmatism?” she acts surprised that the american people are tired of unelected lawyers creating anew the constituion without regard to proper judicial function.

    judicial independence is the new mantra for advancing a living constituion. judges, like all people with power, do not like it when power it taken away. being a mere decider of law is not as prestigious as being a maker of law.

  2. oldsouth Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    You should never have to go out of your way to defend the right decision.

    Maybe Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens will resign in protest of this attack on their autonomy.

    I know, I know. But its Christmas! A what a Happy New Year it would be.

  3. JimBob Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    If O’Connor does not want to be labeled an activist, then she shouldn’t have written decisions which said things like “We expect that [in 2028], racial preferences will be prohibited by the Constitution, but such preferences are fine right now.” Just one of many examples of her activism.

    I notice that she has sat by designation with various federal appellate courts. Here’s hoping the Supremes get a chance to reverse one of her opinions.

  4. Donald R.McClarey Says:
    November 30th, 2006 at 7:11 am

    O’Connor is truly one of the more dim-witted individuals to ever sit on the Supreme Court. Her “split the baby” swing votes made a mess of the law in any number of areas. Her guiding light during her tenure was how she felt on any issue on any particular day, and any reference in her opinions to either the Constitution or prior cases was always just window dressing. That such a mediocre, to be kind, jurist, held the balance on so many important decisions will be the subject of satire for the more perceptive future historians of the Court.

Powered by WordPress