[b] Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor & The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back [

Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor & The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back

Because Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was a Federalist and a Republican those on the left hardly realized what a champion of causes usually associated with Liberals she was.

In 1984 with this opinion she re-affirmed the separation of Church and State, (which rule of law seems to have been ignored by the current administration : < i > "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. “

In her 1992 opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which upheld a woman's constitutional right to an abortion but gave states more flexibility to impose limited restrictions, she wrote: (and saved Roe)
“We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe . Measures aimed at ensuring that a woman's choice contemplates the consequences for the fetus do not necessarily interfere with the right recognized in Roe , although those measures have been found to be inconsistent with the rigid trimester framework announced in that case. . . ."The abortion right is similar. Numerous forms of state regulation might have the incidental effect of increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of medical care, whether for abortion or any other medical procedure. The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it. Only where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to make this decision does the power of the State reach into the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. "

In her 1992 Opinion on Affirmative Action which swayed the Court and saved at least part of it, she wrote < i> "We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to 'sustaining our political and cultural heritage' with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. This court has long recognized that 'education is the very foundation of good citizenship.' For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity.

And most heroically, in 2004 she stood up to Bush, Rumsfeld & Ashcroft when she wrote the majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , ruling a U.S. citizen seized on the Afghanistan battlefield can challenge his detention in U.S. courts "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. . . . It would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. . . .< /i >”

Sandra Day O’ Connor was born on March 26 1930 in El Paso Texas.
I have rectified her chart, as her birth time is unknown, and the rectified chart gives the following
Cusps and planet placements

7:52:57 AM MST + 700
Geocentric Tropical Placidus

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?nhor=3&nho2=2&btyp=2&mth=gr&hsy=0&zod=&add=18&add=19&node=-Yn&asp=1&sday=8&smon=7&syr=2005&rs=&orbp=&cid=fitfileSVODRA-u1119883535&lang=e&gm=a1&ast=

MC 27 Capricorn 59
10th house Aquarian Moon 24
11th house Mars at 7 Pisces
11th house Mercury 29 Pisces
12th house POF 1 Aries
12th house Sun 5 Aries
12th house Uranus 10 Aries
12th house Venus 17 Aries
12th house Equ Asc 2 Taurus
12th house North Node 3 Taurus
12th house Chiron 11 Taurus
Ascendant 12 Taurus
1st house Jupiter 10 Gemini
3rd house Pluto 17 Cancer
IC 27 Cancer
5th house Neptune 1 Virgo
6th house Vertex 19 Libra
6th house South Node 3 Scorpio
7th Descendant 12 Scorpio
9th house Saturn 11 Capricorn

On July 1, 2005 Justice O’Connor shocked the nation by announcing her retirement. This was completely unexpected even by the White House, as the next resignation was expected to be Chief Judge Rehnquist.

Although the press reported Judge O’Connor is retiring from the Supreme Court (at the most inopportune time as seen from the Democrat’s view) to care for her husband who has Alzheimer, Political & Mundane
Astrology takes a look at the hidden factors which may have caused the Justice to suddenly up and chuck her place in the Supreme Court away.

On February 22, 2005 the case of Kelor v City of New London entered the docket of the Supreme Court. This case had to do with what is known as “The Takings Clause – Eminent Domain” and the right of the State to take land from a private party for public use.”

Due to the absence of Rehnquist, Judge O’ Connor herself presided over the verbal arguments of the combatants in the case and the decision of the Supremes delivered on June 23, 2005..The majority in the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that the government could take personal private property from one party and give it to another private party.

It would appear to a practiced astrological “eye” that that was the last straw for Justice O’Connor. She was
shocked and angry as Mars on the midpoint of her natal Sun /Uranus in the 12th house attests. And she wrote her colleagues that “ this was a threat to all private property rights”

Transiting Uranus had just conjuncted her natal Mars at 7 Pisces and was now three degrees away, but Uranus is known to have a kick very commonly as much as 3 degrees after passing over a sensitive point in a chart. And to add to what seemed a shocking decision, the eclipse of April 8, earlier this year at 19 Aries
Was triggered in Justice O’Connor’s chart by the transiting 19 degree Aries North Node over her 12th house Venus which natally opposes her 6th house fated Vertex at 19 Libra in the house of work, and in this case her work was Justice as told by the sign of Libra on the 6th house cusp.

Indicating the finality of this decision and her unhappy if not depressed thought that it was time to move on, was transiting Saturn conjunct transiting MC both at 27 Cancer, sitting smack dab on her 4th house of endings cusp 27 Cancer, and opposing the transiting Moon on her MC. Whenever the Moon or
Saturn are on any of the angles, one feels the need to make a change, to move, and in this case Justice O’Connor decided to end her career.

Chiron also was transiting Justice O’Connor’s career point and had recently passed it. The decision she made was not taken lightly, and Chiron in this placement says it hurt her to leave her career and her position on the Supreme Court.

It appears to me that with the depressing Saturn opposition the Moon on her angles, and this decision of the
Conservative court on June 23rd 2005 leaning heavily toward Corporate ownership of the country, Justice O’ Connor gave up in anger and frustration. Perhaps even her resignation was a message to her colleagues of her disgust at their abandonment of the Constitution and the rights of the people.

On June 23, Justice O’Connor wrote a blistering dissenting opinion to the agreement (5 to 4 of the Supreme
Court ) that the government could take personal private property from one party and give it to another private Party.

She wrote in her 2005 dissent in Kelo v. New London ,: < i > a ruling that gives local governments broad authority to seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. "As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. 'That alone is a just government,' wrote James Madison, 'which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.' "

(Her entire opinion can be found at Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108


Liberals may not have realized it when she was sitting on the bench, but they have lost a champion, an unsung hero of their causes. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor submitted her resignation one week after the
Decision of the Supreme Court to take away the common man’s land.

Pallas180, July 8, 2005. @

She can go die. We wouldn't HAVE this moron in the WH if not for her 2000 vote.
I haven't forgotten how, when the election was called for Gore, she blurted out at a party, "Oh, no!"

if not, try it.

which kinda puts a cloud over all her accidentally-helpful-to-liberals decisions.

what'd you expect?

in protest?

2 so far.

Then how many more might suddenly up and decide to leave?

all repug Supreme Court. I hope no one else resigns.:wow:

very wrong.

From the aspects I really think O'Connor resigned in protest and anger and just couldn't take their destroying the Constitution anymore.

Taurus Asc. certainly seems right on. Thanks.

:hi:

And I think she has since deeply regretted her part in the infamous 2000 selection of b. She would take it back if she could. (I believe)

Have you looked at her transits for then? Or the Court?

she got angry and tired of trying to save the Constitution against the neo-cons I think.

Regarding the technique using the earlier eclipse position that created a persistent 'sensitive point', how long does that persistence last? Is this technique ever used with planets?

With respect to your statement regarding Chiron, please define 'career point'.

***

A massive dose of ambivalence hit me while reading the quote you included regarding O'Conner's statement of education in the 1992 Affirmative Action decision. Look at the third house Pluto, the t-squares, and what her twelfth house stellium opposes. Was she really that idealistic to actually believe that education is about preparing students for 'work' and citizenship? Or was that just her politics instead of true idealism?

where there is a stationary direct or retrograde of a planet, the point becomes sensitized especially when a fire planet (sun/mars) passes it, or when the same retro planet retraces over the point it went retro on. Some say even the Moon can be used as a trigger, but I have never used that since it's so common.

Eclipses are an entirely different matter. They are very strong and bring major events in a personal planet and in a political or mundane chart. The usual length of time the sensitized point of an eclispe (conjunct and opposition it) is supposed to be valid is from 6 months to a year. In many cases some astrologers are finding the effect of an eclipse may be lasting as much as 4 years out, so it's good to keep a list of the eclipses and their degree points handy on a pad to refer to.

Was she really that idealistic to actually believe that education is about preparing students for 'work' and citizenship? Or was that just her politics instead of true idealism?

when these judges get to the highest Court in the land, they're well aware that their decisions become the law for every state, and will be referred to,for decades, if not centuries, to prove cases in every lower court in the land. the same goes for Federal Courts of Appeal.

Which is why the dems have been beside themselves. The current administration has packed the courts with 200 + ultra conservative judges which will change the whole nature/personality of the country
for decades.

If you read the cases above she ruled on, much of her idealism, ruling on what is right, rather than what her political idealogue was, seems to be evident.

Perhaps she was a conservative, until she got a taste of Bush & companies' conservatism and what they were doing to the country.

It's worth it to click on the Findlaw link to read her full dissertations on the eminent domain, jailing of people without due process, Roe, and so on. It becomes apparent she was furious at what this administration was doing to the Constitution.

Additionally after the stupidity of interfering with the 2000 election the Supremes understood they lost much respect.

Now the repugnants have all three branches of govt fixed.