Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  03/12/2013 03:05 AM Report

Dear Ms. O'Conner, ..Didn't CJ Roberts recently cry out "It's not my job to stop America from enacting dumb, possibly un-Constitutional, laws"?

But isn't it EXACTLY the job of the Supreme Court to "check and balance" any Constitutionally-questionable over-reaches of the Congress? ..as well as Executive branch misbehaviors?

Weren't those "checks and balances" devised to PROTECT America?

***

I believe the Constitution's "spirit" is in the equality of each American, and the relative sovereignty of each American, with respect to that American's private properties and personal pursuits.

I believe that was the spirit and HOPE of our initial Presidents.

But may I ask? ..What is the "spirit" in the constitutions of our current Congress and President??

Does anybody know? ..Can anybody say?? ..ANYBODY???

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 03:09 AM Report

WOW! WOW! WOW!

On retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor telling Terry Gross she doesn't regret her vote in Bush v. Gore:

"To know Justice O'Connor as I am privileged to do is to know that the word 'regret' never passes her lips. She is a forward-looking person. She is a Westerner. She is someone who is always thinking about the future, and it's one of the absolutely great things about her. Did she regret her vote in Bush v. Gore? Did she regret the Bush presidency? You bet she did, and you bet she does. The war in Iraq. The war on terror. John Ashcroft as attorney general. The Terri Schiavo case. All of these things filled Justice O'Connor with revulsion, and you can be sure that her vote in Bush v. Gore weighs on her mind. Now, regret it? Saying she regretted it? Did she regret it? You bet."

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/06/173466698/ruth-bader-ginsburg-the-supreme-courts-heavyweight

(So Charlie, you were very sweet dear but you may have been taken.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 02:32 AM Report

She is crusty at 83, a wee bit hard to take:

GROSS: In Casey versus Planned Parenthood, which was a decision in Pennsylvania about a state's right to add restrictions on access to abortion, you had harsh words for Judge Alito. This was before he was a Supreme Court justice, but he had written part of the decision in Casey. In his decision he upheld a certain restriction, which was that a woman had to seek her husband's approval before getting an abortion. A wife had to seek her husband's approval. And in your decision in the Supreme Court overturning that aspect of the decision you called that view repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and to the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally-protected liberty when they marry. Can you elaborate on that at all?

O'CONNOR: No. I don't think I'll try.

GROSS: OK.

O'CONNOR: That's very sensitive and I did the best I could in that decision and I'll leave it there.

GROSS: Paradoxically, it was Samuel Alito who replaced you as a Supreme Court justice when you retired. Did that seem especially ironic to you?

O'CONNOR: Well, I didn't put the two and two together and tell myself that's ironic. I mean it didn't matter what I thought anyway. It wasn't my decision. The court - time moves on and we had new appointments.

(It was incredibly ironic and perhaps she is way too old to realize it--Pope time?)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 02:17 AM Report

A FindLaw survey in 2005 found that only 57 percent of Americans could name any Supreme Court justice.

About 60% of eligible voters turned out in 2012.

57% and 60%.

We have found America's level.

Civics?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 02:06 AM Report

WOW!

A political animal who was bought off from running for Governor.

In Arizona!

Thank you for that Charlie Rose; it speaks volumes.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 01:49 AM Report

She replaced Potter Stewart.

Who?

Reagan was smart to appoint the first woman--a woman he had no relationship with politically or in any other capacity.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 01:39 AM Report

Charlie, "It's déjà vu all over again":

GROSS: Nevertheless you were, during the last years of your service in the Supreme Court, you were considered the swing vote, and...

O'CONNOR: Well, I don't like that term. I never did. And it's not one that I like any better today. I don't think any justice, and I hope I was not one, who would swing back and forth and just try to make decisions not based on legal principles but on where you thought the direction should go. And so I never liked that term.

GROSS: But I think when - a lot of people when they use that term to describe you, it was in praise of you maintaining an open mind and being willing to hear arguments and be swayed by them...

O'CONNOR: If that's what they meant, it's fine because, I like justices who approach problems with an open mind.

GROSS: Well, if we accept that definition of you having had an open mind on the bench, I think it's fair to say, I think a lot of Supreme Court watchers said this, that a lot of the arguments that were made to the court were actually directed to you because you were the person whom, you know, who most stood to be swayed in some cases by the arguments being made.

O'CONNOR: Well, I hope that I did not serve in a capacity that indicates that I could be swayed any old way just depending upon somebody's felicitous argument in the courtroom. I just think that's unfortunate.

GROSS: I meant their...

O'CONNOR: Excuse me?

GROSS: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I meant their persuasive argument, that if they made their case in a really strong way, they could, you know, perhaps convince you.

O'CONNOR: Well, I'm sure that's the effort made by many advocates at the court with any number of the justices. They hope that they will be so persuasive that they'll have a majority of the court on their side. I think that's how most advocates approach their time at the court.

(Is she kidding you Charlie--giving you her own party line? She knew she was the swing vote. What is her game? Reputation over Honesty?)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/08/2013 01:26 AM Report

Yes Charlie, Bush v Gore:

On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas' wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solictor-General.[64]

Various ethics experts have asserted that there was no conflict of interest for Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.[65]

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote:

The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[51]

(Terrible, terrible, terrible decision--and a disgrace to America--that we will pay for in blood and treasure for decades. Thanks Sandy.)

Daly  03/07/2013 08:34 PM Report

Sandra Day O'Connor is a treasure. Her integrity, confidence,optimism,and respect for our country provide inspiration to the young people she wants to educate. I hope she knows that her life and vision inspire and teach by example

charliesheep  03/07/2013 08:04 PM Report

TEACHING 10TH GRADE CHILDREN, CIVICS AND ECONOMICS IS WELL "OLD" SCHOOL -"WE" DON'T WANT DEMOCRATIC UNDERSTANDING -WE WANT ALL "WE" CAN REMOVE[CORPORATE]WITHOUT NOTICE[POLICY]! TO ALL THE FLOUNDERS; LYING ON THE BOTTOM---YOU'RE CHUM !

Gelles  03/07/2013 06:47 AM Report

Correction:

" We also hear praise for "due process of law", which ordinarily requires a "hearing" of all sides in a dispute, consideration of "the evidence" if there is any, and timely decision, with at least one level of appeal. "

Gelles  03/07/2013 06:43 AM Report

The president the other day lauded "human rights" and the "rule of law".

We also hear praise for "due process of law", which ordinarily requires a "hearing" of all sides in a dispute, consideration of "the evidence" if there is any.

But, do these "things" establish "fairness" or "justice", which are our goals in a world of pain and suffering where people are both the problem and solution to our woes.

We have three branches of government and each is supposed to obey the "system" of which they are a part.

All of the above led to a bloody civil war and a plutocracy that is a disgrace to the human race and a curse we seem unable to overcome.

Did Charlie Rose and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor come to grips with any issues? Or was this a love fest celebrating fairness to Eve who was said to come after Adam? What about fairness to new borne's whose parents haven't enough money?

NeilMacCallister  03/06/2013 10:41 PM Report

Dear Ms. O'Conner, ..go you defend my right to protect myself against the federal government???????????

REMant  03/06/2013 11:44 AM Report

I believe I've mentioned before that a govt which does not inform citizens of the law is as bad as one which makes ex post facto law, which ought to be grounds for estoppel. Ignorance of the law really should be a defense. So it would be incumbent on the govt to educate ppl on the law, indeed to make law an education instead of dictate.

As it is now, govt can pass measure after measure and slough the actual implementation off on the public, avoiding responsibility they way they do with the bureaucracy (and in military and financial affairs). As an example of the latter, Krauthammer, the other day, cited a GAO report which noted 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness. We are all aware that no one can figure out the tax code, and that's been codified! This irresponsibility, in fact, was the reason for the codification movement, to make the law rational, as a first step to making it understood, and hence educable.

No business establishment would, I hope, dare antagonize customers this way by charging them more than the stated price, even if they realize they had posted the wrong one, and so it ought to be with "democratic" government.

I'm afraid, however, the legislators who promoted public education had many more motives than civics education, and it has always been my impression, that like many on the Court, she was too willing to use the Constitution to protect individual liberty rather than follow it what it says. That would, I suppose, make her a swing vote automatically. But why should a "moderate" there be condemned when we applaud them in Congress and the electorate?

Nor would I agree with the view that the Court should be an independent branch. That is not our constitution, and it is clearly unworkable without substantial changes in our system of government.

The story of her rejection for employment as late as the early '50s has always surprised me, but it was still a period when a lot of veterans were seeking employment, it was California, and it was a time, well described by William Whyte in The Organization Man, when the family was being seen as a "haven in a heartless world" (to mix titles) more strongly than ever. I would not accept it as proof of universal discrimination indiscriminately.