O'Connor Wanted To Stay On Bench Longer

(AP)  Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would have preferred to stay on the Supreme Court for several more years until she was ill and "really in bad shape" but stepped down because of her ailing husband.

O'Connor, 76, also says she accelerated her retirement announcement by at least a year because then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was battling thyroid cancer, told her he was not ready to leave the court, according to a Newsweek interview released Sunday.

"I was concerned about whether he had an intention to step down since his plans might have altered my own. It's hard for the nation to grapple with two (retirements) at once," she said.

After Rehnquist said he was staying, O'Connor announced her retirement in July 2005. Rehnquist died two months later.

O'Connor, who is still physically and mentally fit, said it was her plan to follow the tradition of previous justices, who enjoy lifetime appointments, to work until they die or are virtually incapacitated.

"Most of them get ill and are really in bad shape, which I would've done at the end of the day myself, I suppose, except my husband was ill and I needed to take action there," O'Connor said.

O'Connor currently divides her time between Washington and Phoenix, where she cares for her husband, John, who has Alzheimer's. Last summer, she reluctantly placed him in a care center in Phoenix and visits him often.

As a retired judge, O'Connor maintains an office at the Supreme Court, still draws a salary and fills in as a judge on the federal appeals courts.

O'Connor also recently served on the 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study Group and said she was surprised when the Republican leader of the panel, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, asked her to serve on the group.

"I wasn't sure I should do it," she said. "It was so out of my field of judging. I don't know anything about the military."

While O'Connor called the assignment fascinating, she declined to say how she felt after President George W. Bush declined to embrace the group's call for a gradual troop pullout and more aggressive regional diplomacy.

"There are probably no perfect answers," she said.

[isthatso-2009]

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state." ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable." - Justice Hugo Black, 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education

[isthatso-2009]

dweymouth - You are desperately grasping at straws. None of the cases you cite are examples of "legislation from the bench". None. They are all case rulings of what was legal and permissable! That is the very function of the court and it worked perfectly.

What is really going on here is that you are brainwashed by the neocon agenda and propaganda. You have a religious "axe to grind".

What you should say is the truth; something more like...

"I am against abortion, freedom of speech, and the seperation of church and state. I want a religious government of CHRISTIANS who are saved while all of the rest of the unwashed heathen are bound straight for hell...blah blah blah..."

Exposing your true hidden agenda has been mildly entertaining but you Sir are nothing more than complete fraud shouting at the top of your lungs about a tempest in a teacup.

[legendary240]

Why not enjoy the rest of your life after serving your country for so long? Agree with her politics or not, she was faithful and consistent. We could use a little more of those traits today across this country.

[bigwhtpony]

76? That's about 11 years too long. "You've had your moment in the sun, and now it's time for you to gracefully step aside." Lisa Simpson

:)

[gunnerv1]

Jdweymouth: Prove your point on Corruption, Don't make charges you can't back up, prove it in Documented print. If you can't prove it, then I suggest that you shut-up.

[adventurepa]

John has Alzheimer's. So sorry about that. Sandra O'Connor, You should allow him to try some cannabis to smoke.
Research has shown it stops Alzheimer's in it's tracks. Phoenix is a cannabis friendly area too.
What harm could it do to a couple in their 70's or 80's? Enjoy and hope it helps.

[jdweymouth]

edjohn66:
If you read my comment, you'd know that I already said that they don't run for election. The president nominates them, and there's a public referendum: there's no political campaign. Also, your comment proved my point that liberals are blinded by the Supreme Court. IT IS ALREADY CORRUPTED. Hate to break in on your fantasy, but if you form a government: YOU INVITE CORRUPTION. The court is not incorruptible, as a matter of fact: it is one of the most corrupted parts of our government.

[edjohn66]

"My point was that, those who would strike down unconstitutional bills drawn up, and passed by elected officials should be elected."

That is the worst idea I've ever heard. An independent judiciary is fundamental to our system of checks and balances. Make judges run for re-election, and you will subject them to the same corruption (via money) that denegrades the legislative and executive.

Can you name a single SC decision that was wrongly decided, and then give a cogent argument for HOW it was wrongly decided? Or are you just repeated what you keep hearing on the Rush Limbaugh show?

I think the judiciary is doing a great job. And I've been very unhappy with many SC and Court of Appeals rulings, but I RESPECT the Constitutional role that an independent judiciary serves.

[jdweymouth]

The %u201Cincorruptible%u201D Supreme Court blinds Liberals, and it is nauseating. The Supreme Court members are given too many privileges: unlimited terms, being able to throw down rulings of lower courts as well as the congress, and members do not have to be elected. The amount of power the Supreme Court is given (as written) is good, but the people who occupy it have corrupted it.

This is way longer than I intended, but I had to make my point.

[jdweymouth]

My point was that, those who would strike down unconstitutional bills drawn up, and passed by elected officials should be elected. As I already pointed out, judges are not, were not, and will never be incorruptible. This is how I think it should be done:
1) Kill the life long appointment.
2) Have the president nominate an x number of judges for 6 year terms (one electoral cycle, and no term limitations)
3) Have a public referendum for approval of the general population by selecting which judge for each federal district (anywhere from 16-32 choices) Lastly, the Chief Justice is the only one appointed by the president, with senate confirmation. This may be complex, but it is better than what we have now. By doing it we ensure a lack of PR and corruption because there isn%u2019t an actual election, but we give the people a say in who exercises the power that the highest court in the land wields.

I would agree that the way as written is good, but it is no longer practiced: the president doesn%u2019t take advice, and in this corrupted world: the power and privileges we give to the federal judges is not to be given to anyone.