WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2007
O'Connor Wanted To Stay On Bench Longer
Former Supreme Court Justice Says She Left Because Of Rehnquist, Husband
-
(GETTY IMAGES/Mark Wilson)
-
Photo Essay Sandra Day O'Connor A look at the first woman to sit on the nation's highest court.
-
Interactive The Supreme Court History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 Commentsbelief 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
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.
:)
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.
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.
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.
This is way longer than I intended, but I had to make my point.
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.
IsThatSo:
RE: "If it violates the very foundational principles of this nation as inscribed in The Constitution, then it is good and just that it is struck down by members of the bench who are immune from influence and pandering."
First of all, the members of the federal bench are not "immune" from pandering and influence. They are first, usually, lawyers or city judges which are elected, and they work their way up to the circuit courts before being appointed to the Supreme Court. That's a lot of history, and during the last confirmation hearing for the Supreme Cour, there was digging deep into the pa, and there was at least one scandal. That was not the first instance that nominees have had dirt found under their beds. My point is that nobody is uncorruptible, no branch of gvernment is incorruptible, and: the Supreme Court is corrupted.
IsThatSo:
Three examples where the Supreme Court has legislated:
1) 1947-The Supreme Court ruled the 1st amendment applied to the states as well as the federal government-even though it wasn't supposed to.
2) 1973-U.S. Supreme Court rules in the case of Roe Vs. Wade. In addition to ruling on the case, it ruled abortion constitutional without prior reason-an act of congress.
3) 2001 or 3 (can't remember)-the Supreme Court rules that federal circuit court in Alabama can't have the 10 commandments displayed in the courthouse. It ruled without precedent.
From these examples I conclude: the Supreme Court legislates, and that it's unconstitutional.
The true power of the U.S. Supreme Court is in it's ability to safeguard all citizens against the tyranny of a simple majority or the power of wealth and station.
When I am confronted by your ridiculous argument, I always ask, "So, which law ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or case decision which was reversed would you consider as an example of supporting your position".
Invariably, they can never come up with anything.
On topic now, Justice O'Connor was an asset to the bench and she will be dearly missed. Hopefully, then next president who has the opportunity, will see fit to nominate women to any vacancies. As a middle aged man I am convinced that the court needs greater gender diversity.
dweymouth - You and those like you are so completely wrong in your view that the "Supreme Court is acting as a legislative body...". This is the single most reprehensible fabrication by the neocons since they took power.
The full intended purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is just what you claim it is not! It is the "Law of The Land", the "Great Equalizer" of all of the lower courts and state courts. It ensures uniformity and complicity and safeguards the weak against the strong. It stops "might makes right" dead in it's tracks. It has the power to overturn a decision of any lower court and that overturning is final. It was designed this way and it is magnificent in it's brilliant construction. It is even so sublime as to be able to reverse itsef later on down the road.
One of the most sacred duties of the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding what cases/laws survive constitutional scrutiny regardless of public outcry. It does not matter if some people voted for a particular law if that law is unconstitutional. Period. If it violates the very foundational principles of this nation as inscribed in The Constitution, then it is good and just that it is struck down by members of the bench who are immune from influence and pandering.
The entire American justice system needs to be redone. Overall, the American system is the most perfect in the world, but the justice system is a mistake. For example: allowing nine APPOINTED (for life) judges being able to overturn laws made by people who are either directly or indirectly ELECTED (the congress and president, respectively). It is wrong. However, the court has been doing it, while they accuse the office of the president of doing the same thing. When a case makes it to the Supreme Court, and the court decides on it: it is supposed to be treated as a case ruling, not the law of the land. The Supreme Court is acting as a legislative body, and it resembles an oligarchy. Read the constitution: the courts are supposed to decide on the constitutionality of law, they%u2019re not supposed to legislate laws. Legislating is what the Supreme Court has been doing lately, and it has been happening unchecked.
It needs to stop.
Let's not forget how we got into this mess.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 Comments