Supreme Court Justice O'Connor Resigns

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Well Shane, here is Bush's first oppertunity to pad the Supreme Court with your Anti-Abortion conservative activist.[/]

By William Branigin, Fred Barbash and Daniela Deane

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, July 1, 2005; 8:12 PM

Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a decisive swing vote for a quarter-century on major legal issues, announced her resignation today effective upon the confirmation of her successor.

In a brief letter to President Bush, O'Connor, 75, gave no reason for her decision to leave the court after 24 years as an associate justice, a tenure in which she played a crucial role in decisions on such major issues as abortion and the death penalty. But a Supreme Court spokeswoman later said O'Connor was retiring in part because she "needs to spend time now with her husband," who is reportedly in poor health.

Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns

[Dr. Shane]

The anti-abortion position is not an "activist" position but an "originalist" postion.

Activists read things into the Constitution that are not there and were not intended to be there. Actvists have also been known to use other nation's laws in order to make rulings in the US.

An originalist applies the Constitution as it was written and believed to be intended by those that wrote it and added Ammendments to it. Since the word abortion does not appear in the Constition and there is no evidence that the authors of it intended it to be protected, an origianlist would consider it to be a states' issue.

Now a conservative activist could rule that the actual baby in the womb has a right to life and thus make the practice of abortion illegal. He or she could use the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Ammendment. That would be an example of right-wing activism because the intent of those that passed the 14th Ammendment had nothing to do with abortion. Bush has said he will appoint originalists - not activists.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The anti-abortion position is not an "activist" position but an "originalist" postion.

---

Origionalist vs activist....sounds like symantics to me...

It's the idealogy that will motivate and cause decisions that will affect the nation for many years...and illogical and non-practical one, In My Opinion. One that will cause hardship and sadness on countless of humans...which will affect others with more sadness. All because a few conservative "originalists" insist on having control over YOUR life based upon thier values, not yourown.

It just to goes to show that some people like to make growing up a difficult thing, by taking over other's thinking process' and thus short circut the thinking/growing up process. Oh well, go figger...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Origionalist vs activist....sounds like symantics to me...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Not at all. There are liberal originalists and conservative originalists. There are liberal activists and conservative activists.

Case in point: the Religious Right do not want liberal activists but do want conservative activists. Bush has pledged to nominate originalists. Gonzalez is a moderate originalist. Extreame liberals do not like him because he is not liberal and radical conservatives do not like him because he is not a conservative activist.

An activist uses the court to create law (liberal or conservative). An orginalist uses the court to interpret law - to try and discover the original intent of the law and if it is constitutional or not. An originalist may be quite conservative and religious and yet rule that the phrase "in God we trust" is a violation of the establishment clause in the first ammendment. An origanlist may be a flaming liberal and rule that sales of hand guns at gun shows is protected by the second ammendment.

The originalist looks for the original intent and his or her political ideals are set aside. The court is not to be political. The Congress and President make the laws. The Court simply rules on the laws - regardless if they agree with them or not. In the case that the Congress and the President make a law that violates the Constituion, the Court strikes it down be means of judicial review.

When a nominee comes before the Senate, the Senate shouldn't be so concerned about the nominee's political beliefs rather about their view of the judical role. If a nominee has a history of judical activism (liberal or conservative) they should not be confirmed.

[Bravus]

I find it ironic that some on the left are now seeing Gonzales as a reasonable option, on the basis that although he's the guy who tried to get the US into the torture business, at least he's unlikely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade...

[Pockey]

Ironic indeed. I couldn't even believe they were considering him, but now it's all making sense. That's okay though. They can kill our bodies, but they can't kill our soul.

[Dr. Shane]

The problems with Alberto Gonzalez isn't so much that he is pro-choice. I am not sure he is. The abortion ruling he made allowed a teenager to bypass a parental notification law. The law itself allowed various exceptions. So his ruling was consistant with the law - even though he may be pro-life himself.

I think conservative pro-lifers oppose him because he is not a right-wing activist. In the Texas court ruling he upheld the law, even though he may have disagreed with it.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction," Mr. Gonzales wrote in the 2000 abortion case. "Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended." He acknowledged that "the results of the court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent," but said that it was his duty to "impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is an origianlist, folks. In that case he was trying to see what the intent of the Texas legelasture was when they wrote the law. It doesn't mean he wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade if he was on the Supreme Court. He may, if on the Supreme Court, consider if the original intent of the founders was to protect abortion.

[bevin]

Who cares what the original intent of the Founders was? They were NOT THAT BRIGHT.

Laws are set by and for TODAY.

The only reason for considering precedent is to avoid changing laws to rapidly and to create a climate where obligations can be assumed today that stay binding across a reasonable period of time.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Shane, thanks for that outline of originalists and activists, by the way. It makes a lot of sense and helps me understand the big picture better.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

he's the guy who tried to get the US into the torture business

---

I'm disappointed. I have come tp expect this sort of careless slander from a number of others. Not from you.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The only reason for considering precedent is to avoid changing laws to rapidly and to create a climate where obligations can be assumed today that stay binding across a reasonable period of time.

---

Virtually every word you wrote is a prerogative of the legislative branch, not the judiciary. Judges are not empowered to change laws, although some have arrogated that power to themselves.

How long a law stays binding is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.

What is reasonable period of time for that "binding" is a matter for the legislature.

The difference between judges acting as judges, and judges acting as legislators is simple.

The judge's role is to be the referee, and interpret the rules. It is not their role to make the rules, or to decide who should win the game.

In the last 70 years, judges have gradually abandoned tha role of referee, and taken on both the rule-making and outcome-determining role. Taking on the roles of the other branches of government is judicial activism. The real losers are not the legislature, but the "players," the ordinary citizens who have lost the opportunity to make a difference. Their actions don't matter so long as judges can arbitrarily change the outcomes. So people progressively lose respect for the law, since what the law says has less and less impact on the outcomes.

Most people haven't cared, because the liked the outcomes, the winners of the game, most of the time.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Who cares what the original intent of the Founders was? They were NOT THAT BRIGHT.

---

The same can be said of the Biblical authors. And this sort of sloppy reasoning is having a devastating effect on the theology of people in the pews.

The judges think they know what the law "ought" to say, and interpret it accordingly. Underlying problems are not addressed democratically, through the legislature, because everyone's waiting for the judges to tell us what it really means. This cripples initiative, and many other things.

In Bible study, self-appointed gurus decide what the Bible "ought" to say, and derive all sorts of silly and sometimes dangerous interpretations.

In both cases, by ignoring the principles that are embodied in the texts, interpreters, having abandoned the original meaning, are free to fabricate the "proper" outcomes which often violate the spirit of the Bibl, or the Constitution.

This is a very dangerous habit to get into. It leads to paralysis, apathy, and repression-- and it leads to Jonestown.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Who cares what the original intent of the Founders was? They were NOT THAT BRIGHT.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

One may want to note that Brother Bevin is not an American citizen although I believe he is eligible to become one if he takes the test.

The founders of the US were by no means saints or produced a perfect document. However it has an ammendment process so if the people do not like the original intent of the founders they can ammend it.

Abortion is an example. In Roe v. Wade the Court ruled the word "others" in the Ninth ammendment includes privacy which includes abortion. Well here is the ammendment:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The enumeration in the Constition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

When we do our homework we find there were some that opposed the Bill of Rights. They opposed it because they felt it would limit the peoples' rights to only those listed in the Bill of Rights. They felt it was not needed because if the Constition didn't give a right to the government it was assumed the government didn't have the right. For example: no where did the Constition grant the government the right to make laws restricting free speech or freedom of religion so no ammendment was needed to protect the people against such laws.

Many originalists believe the word "others" in the ninth ammendment refers to all the common rights like the right to choose ones vocation, area to live, food to eat, vacation destinations, education, etc. Basicly it refers to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which was stated in the Declaration of Independance.

Since the activist court has made abotion illegal there has never been enough support to ammend the Constitution. If a future originalist court overtunes Roe v. Wade there will not likely be enough support on the pro-choice side to ammend the Constitution either. Abortion will become an issue for individual state legislatures so pro-choice groups will take their battles to the states.