I Must Wear A Bib - I Drool

Although retired now former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor feels like trying to get the last word in - against Republicans. Now I know she was nominated for that position by former great President Ronald Regan, but I think Sandra turned a bit toward the liberal side.

The reason she's getting a blog about her today was something she said last Friday - specifically:

"Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do." O'Connor told lawyers at Georgetown's Corporate Counsel Institute. "We must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

O'Connor said politicians should not demand that a judge, under threat of impeachment, issue rulings that meet their "nakedly partisan, result-oriented reasoning."

Now I do agree that the Executive Branch should not be able to threaten a judge with impeachment, but our country has had some pretty shady judicial decisions come out of the courts in the past decade - by judges that presumably are interpreting the law, or in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution (which boggles my mind why that branch ever decided to hear the Anna Nicole probate case is beyond me).

I decided to check some of her record:

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

She ruled against a high GPA student's lawsuit of reverse discrimination and in favor of the affirmative action at the University of Michigan - a clear violation of "all men are created equal" in the Constitution.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

She ruled against the Boy Scouts and in favor of James Dale - forcing the young boys to take this homosexual back as a Scoutmaster. (Like please, someone show me in the Constitution where young boys must be forced to have homosexual Scoutmasters?)

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

She wrote a concurring opinion basically stating that if heterosexuals can have anal sex then homosexuals should have the right to get it in the butt too. (Odd she referenced the "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" yet forgot that amendment in the Grutter v. Bollinger case.

Perhaps far worse was that she was a vigorous defender of the citing of foreign laws in judicial decisions. When the USA starts to shape and interpret our Constitution by foreign laws - that means big trouble. In a speech October 28, 2003 at the Southern Center for Internation Rights (a.k.a., a socialist group) she said:

The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark... There is talk today about the "internationalization of legal relations." We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts - what is sometimes called "transjudicialism".

Good riddance Sandra!