O'Connor: Court should follow precedent

Source: AP via Yahoo News

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 20, 5:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says the Supreme Court should generally follow its prior rulings so the public has confidence that laws do not change just because justices come and go.

O'Connor, a swing vote in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action, said she was seeing an unprecedented level of public criticism in recent months of state and federal court decisions.

The vast majority of the criticism, she said, is unjustified and borders on harassment of judges, especially in cases where lawmakers threaten impeachment of judges for decisions they disagreed with.

But federal courts, too, play a role in fostering public credibility by generally adhering to "stare decisis," or settled precedent, O'Connor said.





Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor

---

I'm not sure I totally agree with Sandra Day O'Connor on this. There are times when the courts need to overturn prior precedent.

For example, it was a good thing when the Supreme Court overturned their previous doctrine of "separate but equal." The Plessy vs. Ferguson decision established "separate but equal," which thankfully the court overturned in their Brown v. Board decision.

So there are times when prior precedent needs to be overturned.

She sure has a lot of credibility talking about it now.

Perhaps this portion of an article from Newsweek magazine will shed some light on why O'Connor did not heed her own advice and follow prior precdent when Bush v Gore came before the court. If her reaction on election night 2000 was any indication, it's clear she was thinking of this in terms of politics, not the law.

________________________

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband, John, a Washington lawyer, have long been comfortable on the cocktail and charity-ball circuit. So at an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to NEWSWEEK. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.

O'Connor had no way of knowing, as she watched the early returns, that election night would end in deadlock and confusion--or that five weeks later she would play a direct and decisive role in the election of George W. Bush. O'Connor could not possibly have foreseen that she would be one of two swing votes in the court's 5-4 decision ending the manual recount in Florida and forcing Al Gore to finally concede defeat. But her remarks will fuel criticism that the justices not only "follow the election returns," as the old saying goes, but, in the case of George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, Jr., sought to influence them.

and yes, I think she is somewhat haunted--unlike many of the others.

This absolutely must be done before the court deserves any respect from the citizens of the nation that it betrayed.

But then, the Dem party that is approving the Bush Free Trade Fast Track will likely NOT do so. If they take the impeachment of Bush/Cheney off the table, they won't do anything about the criminality of the court.

The one way possible to put the court back in the hands of reasonable people is for a Dem president with a dem senate to appoint three justices to the court. Most people are not aware that the size of the court is not set in the constitution, but determined by the president.

If it was up to me I'd indict them for treason, they were the conspiracy that put the war criminals in charge of the country.

like Powell and O'Connor. They actively enabled the Bush fascist cabal and now they feel pangs of guilt. Too little too late. Our country, Constitution and democracy are destroyed. People in inside positions of power like Powell and O'Connor COULD have stood up and been counted but chose to turn away from the cosmic neocon trainwreck in front of their eyes. They either need to come out guns blazing like ex-President Carter or shut up.

to really make a difference, you blew it!!!!!

Although I do think she is a tragic (pathetic, ghastly) figure now. She threw her legacy away on that wannabe cowboy. Yikes, epic.

I know she was bitter about that. That's what happens when you back dictators.

Someday it will come out in public that Bush stole 2000 AND 2004. Thanks to SCOTUS. Impeach those installed by the Chimperor.

She abandoned the Court to suit herself and now she has the nerve to comment on the mess?

Treasonous trash.

which are supposed to be impartial. It is a HUGE MISTAKE to appoint judges for lifetime terms, specially under the current heavy political influence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

fuck you o'conner, you willing throw the the whole nation under the bus with your bullshit.

:)

:rofl:

that totally blacken a more or less distinguished lifetime career in the law.

She threw it all away with just this one mistake on her part--she let politics dominate the law. There is no way this blot on her career can be overcome.

Sorry Sandie...you lose and its all your fault.

Justice O'Connor's resignation today raises interesting questions about her political identification. If one reads many far-right wing sites, O'Connor was a liberal, barely distinguishable from Justice Ginsburg, if not Jesse Jackson. Yet, if the rumors of her comments when Gore was thought the victor of the 2000 election are correct, and there is some truth to claims that Justices try to time resignations, Justice O'Connor clearly preferred that Bush appoint her successor than Gore. Apparently, her efforts to push the court to the right on such matters as federalism and takings were far more important to her than the occasional vote to overturn a particularly egregious death sentence and the privacy cases.

--more--
lefarkins blogspot

How many have died because of your "ruling?"