Defending the Truth

· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday March 20 2006

In the article below, we referred to a US court decision to order Terri Schiavo to be removed from life support, describing her in our account as "brain dead". Relatives of Terri Schiavo point out that although she was severely brain damaged there was no diagnosis of "brain dead" and neither was that the conclusion of the post-mortem examination.


Article continues
Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.

Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

In her address to an audience of corporate lawyers on Thursday, Ms O'Connor singled out a warning to the judiciary issued last year by Tom DeLay, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives, over a court ruling in a controversial "right to die" case.

After the decision last March that ordered a brain-dead woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, removed from life support, Mr DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour."

Mr DeLay later called for the impeachment of judges involved in the Schiavo case, and called for more scrutiny of "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president".

Such threats, Ms O'Connor said, "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom", and she told the lawyers in her audience: "I want you to tune your ears to these attacks ... You have an obligation to speak up.

"Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do," the retired supreme court justice said.

She noted death threats against judges were on the rise and added that the situation was not helped by a senior senator's suggestion that there might be a connection between the violence against judges and the decisions they make.

The senator she was referring to was John Cornyn, a Bush loyalist from Texas, who made his remarks last April, soon after a judge was shot dead in an Atlanta courtroom and the family of a federal judge was murdered in Illinois.

Senator Cornyn said: "I don't know if there is a cause and effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."

Although appointed by a Republican, Ms O'Connor voted with the supreme court's liberals on some divisive issues, including abortion, making her a frequent target for criticism from the right. After announcing that she intended to retire last year at the age of 75, she was replaced in February this year by Samuel Alito, who is generally regarded as being more consistently conservative.

In her speech, Ms O'Connor said that if the courts did not occasionally make politicians mad they would not be doing their jobs, and their effectiveness "is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729396,00.html

-----------------------
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” ---James Madison 4th U.S. president (1809 -1817), and one of the founding fathers of this country. (1751- 1836)

My posts may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code.

dictatorship...haha

Oh yeah, you know the situation in Washington better than a 25+ year serving Justice on the Supreme Court. *rolls eyes*

Why wasn't stuff like this mentioned when the Democrats were in control??

Because it wasn't happening! I believe it was the point of this article, to point out that this turn for the worse was a result of the GOP-controlled Washington.

"ridinhighspeeds Why wasn't stuff like this mentioned when the Democrats were in control??"


Because the DEMS want a Dictatorship just as much as the REPS do!
They’re just speaking up now because the REPS are doing such a good
of getting a dictatorship and excluding the DEMS at the same time!

Look Effectively we do have a dictatorship!
Only some one who is certified by the DNC or GOP can be prez.
The people who "REPRESENT US" are pick by the DEMS or REPS
The Electoral College. Your vote does not really count!!!
Because America is a Federal Republic! If you vote for a REP or DEM
you can fool yourself in to believing that your vote counts!

Remember

Clinton got ~42% of the peoples Vote --> 70% (Electoral )
Bush Sr got ~39% of the peoples Vote --> 30%
Ross P. got ~18% of the peoples Vote --> 0%

Gore had more votes but Bush won!

Who picks the E.C. Voters?

Are they legally bonded to vote according to the will of the People?

If they are why do we need them? Can we just tally up the Popular Vote
and determine the E.C. Vote from the Popular Vote?

Who made up the "Winner take all" Rule?
Is it good/fair? Or a method to give/keep more power for the REPS&DEMS?