Sandra Day O'connor warns of US dictatorship

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. What a riot watching the right wingers pile on a Reagan appointee....

    Let's see.....how did Sandy vote on the 2000 election issue of Gore vs. Bush re: Florida vote count?

    LOL.....

    "On December 12, 2000, the Wall Street Journal reported O'Connor was reluctant to retire with a Democrat in office:

    At an Election Night party at the Washington, D.C. home of Mary Ann Stoessel, widow of former Ambassador Walter Stoessel, the justice's husband, John O'Connor, mentioned to others her desire to step down, according to three witnesses. But Mr. O'Connor said his wife would be reluctant to retire if a Democrat were in the White House and would choose her replacement. Justice O'Connor declined to comment."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O'Connor
     
    #11     Mar 10, 2006
  2. klans,
    remember this quote:
    power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
     
    #12     Mar 10, 2006
  3. maxpi

    maxpi

    We are definitely part of the axis of leftist evil, along with Mexico. California first then on to Mexico... remember the Maine boys.
     
    #13     Mar 10, 2006
  4. She is not a complete moron, and I never said she was. Every conservativbe appreciates her hanging on, so Bush could appoint her replacement. Of course, she didn;t have to wait until his second term to retire.

    There's nothing wrong with her wanting a republican president to select her replacement. She had a lifetime appointment and could retire when she jolly well pleased.
     
    #14     Mar 10, 2006
  5. Here's the difference. You can correct each of those complaints at the polls. When the Supreme Court "discovers" another constitutional right that had somehow been missed for 250 years, then we don;t have any realistic way of changing it through democratic action.

    As for DeLay and Frist, they pushed a law that said federal courts have a right to review termination of life support decisions. I find it ironic that liberals would object to that, considering they abuse federal courts constantly to challenge death penalty cases.
     
    #15     Mar 10, 2006
  6. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in existence. These are the individuals behind the push for a new world order and the lefties have always made good, robotic foot soldiers. In case anybody didn't know it, we are the most advanced civilization in the history of mankind. Why? because we are the latest civilization, but that's besides the point...Anyway, as I was saying, the lefties' goal is for complete command and control of this civilization, which, as I just explained, is the most advanced civilization in the history of mankind because it's the latest. Still following me? Good....Then, the lefties want to leverage their assets of conspiracy theorists, Code Pinkies, communists the world over, groups like Queers for Economic Justice, etc., in order to control the rest of humanity. Now, some of you may laugh after reading what I have posted here. That's okay. I expect you to laugh. You're probably the same ones who laugh at conspiracy theories in general, especially those of the 9/11 variety, but, being rational people, you understand that Watergate was a real event, and you never thought it was a conspiracy in the first place anyway, much to the disappointment of certain morons on this website.

    Good night and good luck.
     
    #16     Mar 10, 2006
  7. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    Yes, she's a damn hypocrite. She helped enshrine Bush and his horde back in 2000 and now she wants to whine about the then-predictable outcome for the courts. May she and her ilk all go to hell.
     
    #17     Mar 10, 2006
  8. ellokn

    ellokn

    I do not know how old you are, but when O'Conner was appointed by Regan (she came to his attention after a intellectually conservative, and well-thought-out article in "Foreign Policy." but conservatives everywhere were happy with her appointment to the bench. Remember, it was her swing vote that put , Bush into the Whitehouse.

    You seem to have a lot of anger with the Judiciary.

    You seem to have an issue with the idea of a female on the bench. "Bitter woman" now repalced by "man ......with a clearer (sic) and more mature..."

    These were her exact words, and spoken like a true Conservative:

    "Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the 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."
     
    #18     Mar 11, 2006
  9. LOL-

    we could get the chance to be the "insurgents" ....
     
    #19     Mar 11, 2006
  10. MANY T HOUSANDS OF MEXICANS IN STREETS AT RALLY CHICAGO? AGAINST TIGHTENING BORDER SECURITY........... ANGRY HILLARY WILL SAVE US? WHO IS SHE MAD AT BESIDES BILL?
     
    #20     Mar 11, 2006