cross posted at Kos
I don’t have all the story but Justice O’Connor has BLASTED the Republicans for their partisan attacks on the courts. She stated (paraphrase) that partisan attacks on the courts for political purposes must stop. She included references to cutting a court’s budget, intimidation, and poisioning the public against the judicial system. Wow! Then she said something off the charts…
She closed by saying (paraphrase) that it takes a long time to become a dictatorship but better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end. That’s Right..Sandra Day O’Connor used the word dictatorship. Not some ‘nutty blogger’ not some ‘left wing lezzy’ but the most venerated, praised, widely respected, Justice O’Connor.
The audio was on NPR..I suppose the lead could be ‘NPR finds its balls’ cause I’ve been scouring the net and can’t find the speech but the audio will be on the net at 10AM
I don’t care if this diary gets recommended or not (I had a good diary yesterday that got pretty much ignored) but I hope this gets picked up. Her statements were right on the mark, Molly Ivins could not have said it better. Thank you Justice O’Connor, from the bottom of my heart I salute your guts and courage. You told it as it is except you may have left out that we’re well into the slide down the slippery slope (or maybe you inferred).
It would be odd if Sandra Day O’Connor became an even more powerful force in this country as a private citizen than whe was as a Supreme Court Justice.
But, as they say, dog works in mysterious ways.
She could do it too.
As a justice she couldn’t voice opinions off the bench as freely as she now can as a private citizen. Plus, now she has the notoriety of being a retired justice behind her too.
I hope she does make herself heard and often. We need more women as statesmen. (stateswomen, really)
Pretty amazing. I wish she had spoken out sooner, however. It might have given our senators something to think about during the confirmation hearings.
So you know, I didn’t ignore yesterdays diary. Right now we are discussing issues of rape and child molestation that are vitally important to this community and an unfortunate result of that is to see very good diaries slip down the list. But they’re not ignored :o)
On Justice O’Connor, very encouraging to hear her speak out in this way. Especially the use of “dictatorship”. That is beyond refreshing. But I think we will see that whatever respect that the right wing has had for her in the past will turn to disgust. I was reading over at Freerepublic this morning to see the reaction to Faith Hill and Tim McGraw’s statements against Bush’s reaction and handling of Katrina and let me tell you, I could not find one comment in defense of their opinion. On the contrary, it was vicious and mean. Not to mention the usual ignorance.
Anyway,
I’m recommending this diary.
Peace
I don’t know if the link is broken, or if it’s just me. But could you check it please? I’d like to hear her interview at 10:00
Thanks
delete the extra period
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712
It makes me want to slap her. Not that I would, but it makes me want to. After all, she helped put said dictatorship in place.
You want to slap her because she’s doing the RIGHT thing?
I can see still wanting to slap her for doing the WRONG thing; but wanting to slap her for doing the RIGHT thing seems a little extreme.
Why don’t these people who have such strong feelings speak out while there’s still time to do something about it? If Scalia can mouth off about how only imbeciles believe the constitution is a living document, certainly O’Connor could have said something during the confirmation process.
Same with Colin Powell and his aide. They are complicit in sending this country into a full-scale dictatorship.
Because she was still on the court during those hearings and as a member of the independent judiciary she did did not have a role in the selection process. Speaking out publically in her personal capacity against someone nominated for the court would have been wrong; may have been unethical.
Colin Powell I won’t give any quarter to. He should have spoke up.
And I think what Scalia does is wrong and he should stop it. But just because he acts that way doesn’t mean that gives the other justices the right to act that way.
Scalia is a big-mouthed pig. Just had to say that.
If it makes you feel better.
Now that you have that off your chest … ?
Anything to say about the SUBSTANCE of her speech?
I can’t be bothered with substance. 🙂 I haven’t listened to it yet, but I definitely will and perhaps even feel smart enough to comment.
SMACK! Consider yourself slapped. (just a little love tap) It does not matter what she did in 2001. Not any more. What matters is that more and more conservatives are speaking out, jumping ship, pointing fingers… more wingnuts are seeing the light, more evangelicals are realizing that they also got the shitty end of the stick. We gonna slap them all when they start to tell us they (gulp) agree with us? This woman is a respected conservative jurist. I applaud her.
That is EXACTLY right.
But it does matter. She contributed to the perversion of the rule of law, and now she’s acting surprised that we have a near dictatorship? Come on.
She could apologize. Then maybe I wouldn’t be quite as angry with her.
I’m with you.
Everyone is responsible for their actions and to give praise here without pointing out her role in getting us here is wrong. It’s almost like being told by the wingnuts to get over it.
Don’t think so.
I’m not a wingnut and I’m telling you to get over it.
I disagree with what she did in 2001. I think she did the country wrong. We were her victims. But to continue to dwell on that wrong is to have a victim mentality and wallow in the “wrongness of life.”
GET OVER IT. Don’t forget it; but use the experience and MOVE ON.
Whatever.
Mary,
hopefully her speaking out now will have some good effect, but I think if she had spoken out then, instead of aiding and abetting the corruption of our election system, then she would have done a much larger good.
You say you’re not telling anyone to get over it, then you write, GET OVER IT
She is directly complicit in the theft of our democracy. I will not get over it.
Where did I say I didn’t want to tell you to get over it? If I did, I retract it. But I don’t see where I said it in that last post.
We are in a fight. We would be foolish not to use every single tool at our disposal in that fight.
One of our biggest complaints in this fight is that the traditional media will not focus on what is happening to our country; how it is sliding into a dictatorship. We have discussed ad nauseum how to get the media to pay attention to this.
And now this is handed to us.
And what do we do? We yell “unclean unclean” and run from it.
Would it be nice if she apologized for her previous actions? Yes. Would it be really great if she put on sackcloth and ashes and crawled on her belly down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol as an act of remorse. Maybe.
Should we demand that. NO. Because to demand it makes us no better than the Christian fundamentalists we despise.
I tell you — you MUST get over it if you we are going to move on. You do not have to forget it. You can continue to be angry about it. But you must get over the hurdle that it represents to clear thinking in this battle.
My apologies. I misread your comment. You did tell me to get over it. So I will tell you again that I won’t get over it. I’ll use it to hold her to a higher standard. Is that ok with you?
My initial comment on this diary was praise to her.
You might have missed that.
I could care less if you praise her or if you lambast her. What was good about your initial comment was that you tried to reach the substance of what was going on with her speech. Even if you hadn’t yet heard the story.
But that is an exception. For the most part the comments in this diary have been the usual emotional drivel. I addressed you on this because I think you are better than that AND because I hate to see you abetting this need that people have to talk ONLY about their own emotional response to issues such as these rather than focusing on what can help us in our fight.
It would be nice to win this battle by only associating with people who think like us. It’s nice when people post comments saying that they’ll do anything, ANYTHING, within their power to restore trust and integrity to our government. What I’m saying is that ANYTHING includes getting beyond the emotional antipathy that we have for people who have done wrong but are now willing to do something. It may not be all that we want; but it’s something.
I’m not sure if I should thank you or not for singling me out here for this discussion. I won’t assume either that you care one way or the other.
I agree with everything you just said except for the emotional drivel part. True that those feelings are a barrier to going forward, but we’re not talking about some small issue of a bad call she made in some insignificant case.
I’m all for reaching out to, and embracing as best we can, those who can help in our fight going forward, but I don’t think anyone in this thread was suggesting exlcuding her newfound courage to speak out form the overall message. Just venting. She deserves it.
Well who else am I going to talk to 🙂
I think that we are long past the time when we can tolerate members of this community simply venting. Everyone should be thinking about about how they can use this to our advantage.
What I’m thinking is — how much does it cost to get her to come give this exact same speech to my local bar association or at one of the local law schools? My community has lots of moderate lawyers who tend to vote Republican but aren’t idealogical and who are concerned about the direction of this country but who feel uncomfortable saying it out loud. For them to hear something like this from Sandra Day O’Connor could be a godsend for us.
So rather than venting about how angry I am with her, I’m going to look into that. I encourage you and everyone else to do the same. Or think of some other creative way to use this gift that we’ve been given.
were her victims?
When did the nightmare end?
Little hard to “get over it” when the aftermath of her actions continue to assault us, and in ever increasing measure.
MoveOn?
MoveOVER.
OK “are” her victims
But I don’t let people keep me in victimhood. And if I can, I try to get back at them by using them for my own purposes.
I said the other day we needed to get creative about where and when to speak out.
Maybe we should get creative with Sandy. And thinking of ways to get creative with her is far more productive than going over old territory one more time — especially since we are all well aware of what she has done. There’s nobody to convince here. We are preaching to the choir on that subject.
Of course you are right here. Your idea to get her to speak out in other venues is excellent btw.
I don’t see a problem with preaching to the choir a little though. Most of what we do here is exactly that and it’s right for you to challenge that aspect of our interaction here.
Because we can become mesmerized by our own music.
Bush v Gore was the most egregious violation of our democracy I had seen prior to that date.
And every subsequent assault on our democratic principles has flowed from that violation.
Unfortunately, too much of the “choir” seems to share your belief that it is best to “moveOn.”
I do not share that belief.
No one should have left that decision stand. But “we” did.
And in so doing, we have willingly participated in all the subsequent abuse.
We made ourselves complicit in our own victimization. And we continue to do so.
I repeat: moveOver.
Alas, I do not drive a hummer, just a little itty bitty Outback, and I have no way of running the “moveOn-ers” off the road.
As they say in Germany: immer gerade aus.
Thanks, I appreciate you saying so.
Even if she apologized, I still wouldn’t be with her! Her vote was the contributing factor to the distruction of this country! I don’t get all of the cheering for her now.
Nice try, Sandy!
Great! I have never forgiven her for stopping the vote count in Florida and inflicting the Fubar administration on the world.
Perhaps now Sandra will begin to atone for that sin. I hope so.
Imho, O’Connor was the swing vote that usurped the constitution in 2000. She wasn’t too vigilant then and helped to coronate a king that began the ‘direct threat to our constitutional freedoms.’
The destruction of our freedoms will take decades to repair.
The speech was at Georgetown on Thursday and no recordings were allowed. So this was Nina Totenberg’s report on what she said.
According to Totenberg, O’Connor pointed to developing countries and former communist countries where interference with the judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish. She said we must be ever vigilant against those who who would strong arm judiciary into adopting THEIR preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
I wish I could have heard the actual speech.
According to Totenberg, O’Connor attacked Tom Delay because he took off after the courts for rulings on abortion prayer and especially the Schiavo case, where O’Connor pointed out that courts had simply applied the congress’s one time statute “as written” not as Delay “wishes it were written”.
The response to this “flagrant display of judicial restraint” (Totenberg says her voice was dripping with sarcasm) was that the congressman blasted the courts.
She also said that there are currently a lot of suggestions for “judicial reforms” such as mass impeachments of judges, cutting budgets, stripping courts of jurisdiction, etc. She said all reforms are open for debate as long as they are not driven by retaliation against judges who rule in a way not wanted by the lawmakers. “I am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning.”
Live blogging this morning Maryb?
Thanks
I did follow the link to the homepage and heard Totenberg’s report.
I have at last found your flaw:
You can’t multitask.
I’m so relieved. Perfect men are so off putting.
Well if that’s a flaw, then I have less to worry about than I thought :o)
I too have very mixed emotions about the former Justice. She may just be more beneficial now that she is off the court but JC why do these people hold their tongues so long? You know who I truly admire is the Judge that resigned from the FISA court due to the NSA spying scandal. Now that is a true patriot.
I was about to hit submit and give you a 4 to register my agreement, but I had to stop at the last second. Wait a minute! I’m actually deeply conflicted about this. On the one hand, why participate in the sham? Why lend legitimacy to the atrocity? On the other hand, why give up whatever power you’ve got to effect change? Why abandon the system and leave it in the hands of those with no conscience?
Then why did she resign? If she truly thinks the country is sliding into dictatorship (as I do), shouldn’t she have stayed on the court?
Just askin.’
Responsibility. Like most of the other neo-con rats that’re deserting the sinking USS Bush, she wants to look like she’s against the President’s policies without actually having any responsibility to do anything about them. On the Supreme Court, she’d have to rule against them. As a private citizen, she can just wave her hands, blame the electorate for “going along”, and rake in the cash by acting like an underdog without actually having to do anything.
Pretty much the same strategy the Democrats are using.
If her words actually help, then good.
She still helped destroy the republic.
She is like a rat singing. You are glad they sing, but you still don’t respect them.
Like any crook caught in a web, she is trying to get out from under. That is why they sing.
for the heads-up! I rarely listen to NPR anymore. Amy Goodman just played some snips from Hilary’s Princeton speech last fall & I feel sick.
Just an observation: there’s no logical reason why one can’t angrily remember SDC’s role in 2000, and still applaud & put to good use these views of hers. It would be great if she were speaking out more, & Mary’s got a great idea here — thanks too for the summaries– I don’t need to ‘get over it’ to think so though.
I’m old enough to well remember being appalled when she was nominated to the Court, & it is telling how, in light of subsequent events, she now appears to almost be moderate. It’s important to me to remember things like 2000, or a number of her rulings, to realize that that illusion is but a symptom of our times.
On Dec 4, 2000, SD O’Conner voted with 4 other SC justices to give Bush the presidency.
At that point, she set her legacy and the meaning of her life.
Whatever else she does, it means nothing. All of this crap about the value of her comments about repukelinazis is totally useless.
She voted on the SC to make her preference into the president.
That is unforgiveable.
She let the dictator steal an election. She violated her own alleged principles. If she wanted to resist dictatorship she could have stayed on the court and fought against it. Now she’s all safe and no doubt trying to sell a book and she “speaks out” when there’s nothing to gain or lose. Screw her.
. . . of Nina’s story is up at Raw Story
Her remarks largely criticize Republican leaders’ “attacks on the judiciary” that “pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms.”
I printed it out to show my wife later & the poet’s eye, taking the line as significant unit, was amused to read the line:
direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O’Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or
Sometimes the truth lies in between the lines. Sometimes it’s right in ’em . . .