Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement today. How ironic.
Posted By: MTME on 2005-07-01 In Reply to:
On a weekend when we are all preparing to celebrate our independence, some of us can get ready to kiss that very same independence goodbye.
If Bush stays true to his "base" and the Democrats are unsuccessful in what I hope will be a very aggressive filibuster (if the candidate does turn out to be someone who is unwilling to substitute the Constitution for the Bible), we will have conservatives chipping away at our independence: controlling our lives, our deaths, defining which God is "politically correct," who people with the "wrong" orientation are "allowed" to love, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder how much "independence" we will have left to celebrate on July 4, 2006.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship
· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary
Julian Borger in Washington
Monday March 13, 2006
Guardian
Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.
In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.
Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary.
She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
In her address to an audience of corporate lawyers on Thursday, Ms O'Connor singled out a warning to the judiciary issued last year by Tom DeLay, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives, over a court ruling in a controversial right to die case.
After the decision last March that ordered a brain-dead woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, removed from life support, Mr DeLay said: The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour.
Mr DeLay later called for the impeachment of judges involved in the Schiavo case, and called for more scrutiny of an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.
Such threats, Ms O'Connor said, pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom, and she told the lawyers in her audience: I want you to tune your ears to these attacks ... You have an obligation to speak up.
Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do, the retired supreme court justice said.
She noted death threats against judges were on the rise and added that the situation was not helped by a senior senator's suggestion that there might be a connection between the violence against judges and the decisions they make.
The senator she was referring to was John Cornyn, a Bush loyalist from Texas, who made his remarks last April, soon after a judge was shot dead in an Atlanta courtroom and the family of a federal judge was murdered in Illinois.
Senator Cornyn said: I don't know if there is a cause and effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.
Although appointed by a Republican, Ms O'Connor voted with the supreme court's liberals on some divisive issues, including abortion, making her a frequent target for criticism from the right. After announcing that she intended to retire last year at the age of 75, she was replaced in February this year by Samuel Alito, who is generally regarded as being more consistently conservative.
In her speech, Ms O'Connor said that if the courts did not occasionally make politicians mad they would not be doing their jobs, and their effectiveness is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. yes....this is also the man who announced...
to the world that the war in Iraq was lost. He was wrong then and he is sooo wrong now.
She was announced quite some time ago
If people wanted her changed, you would think they wouldn't wait until the day before the debate. It will be a good excuse to use if Sarah looks bad again. Her supporters can blame her performance on everyone but her.
FOX just announced that their dancing
Also stated that the O obviously does not know how to dance. I did not state it, FOX did. Gee whiz.
I think she looks big in the dress. The gold one she wore this morning was fabulous on her.
She announced that she intended to release it on...
inauguration day. Now you tell me why she would do that, if she was not invested in it being Barack Obama being inaugurated?
Am I missing some bigger picture? I'm serious with that question.
Last night Barrack mentioned how he's against the raising of the retirement age. Hillary didn't really speak to it, but I got the impression that she also doesn't want to see that happen. Is there some reason other than AARPs very powerful lobby? I mean, in the 60's, the average life expectancy was about 70 years, now it's close to 78. Why shouldn't retirement age be raised? We are not only living longer, but we're living healthy longer. I do realize that not all will remain healthy, but for those there is disability also.
SS is in so much trouble, it just seems to me to be a no brainer that by raising the retirement age, even by just a couple of years, some of those problems can be lessened.
Thank goodness my DH and I took all of our retirement
and investments out of the market about 6 weeks ago, had a feeling something was coming.
People near retirement age will be put out on the
ice floe to die. But since out country is a little short of ice floes, those who have reached the end of their 'productive lives' will be denied medical care and allowed to seek whatever undignified death seems appropriate to them. Adapt or die. Next question?
I am a PT MT receiving my retirement
social security benefits. Here is what the letter I received from the SSA stated:
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Among its provisions are one-time payments to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, as well as funding to help the agency address critical needs.
One-Time Payments of $250 For Social Security and SSI Beneficiaries
Nearly 55 million people who receive Social Security and SSI benefits will get a special one-time payment of $250. They should receive the one-time payment by late May 2009. 401K/retirement fund
You can't "take" your pension and 401K out of the stock market if you are not retirement age. We are stuck with whatever the companies we work for invest in. my husband and I have some choices about where we invest our 401K but they all involve mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.
That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us.
who staunchly defend this lying idiot president when he doesn't play by the rules when it comes toobeying the law and honoring the Constitution are the same ones who refuse to play by the monitor's rules on this board?
What is ironic
It's ironic that a country that was originally based on freedoms as well as freedom of religious persecution, and as a place for a mix of cultures....has become so incredibly shallow and dopey as to condemn someone because of their middle name. It is astounding. You really should be addressing your bigotry and animosity toward Obama's mother (who is dead) as this was totally her deicision, NOT HIS.
How ironic about the AMA.
I read somewhere not too long ago, and please forgive me, I can't remember where, that the AMA lobbied against reform during someone else's push for it. I'll have to do some digging on exactly who and the specifics, but I think it is rather ironic that they are now jumping in the fight regardless of how big a role they eventually play.
I just don't think that mandating people to buy insurance or forcing employers to provide it for their employees is the answer either. I like the buy-in to Medicare idea which is part of Edwards plan (I think Obama's too for that matter).
Most people are grossly under insured as it is. I have decent coverage, 80/20 split. But even then if something catastrophic happens to my family, how on earth could we pay 20% of a million dollars? That's not being dramatic either. I have a friend who had a baby premature, 21 weeks believe or not and healthy as can be now, but the costs were a million and a half and that was eight/nine years ago. Probably tack on a few hundred thousand more by now.
I think it is ironic........
when people use foreign words or derivatives and do NOT know how to use them correctly. Then use an ENGLISH expression, or LOOK it up, and don't try to show off. You make yourself just laughable. LOL
You know what is ironic.....
President Obama stated several times yesterday about how we shouldn't use the same ideas as the pubs because why continue to do things that didn't work. Great point, President Obama.....so what gives with the stimulus package? Uh....didn't Bushy do that. I mean.....that was called a bailout but still....same idea. So if we shouldn't repeat things that didn't work....why are you pushing so hard for this spendulous package that, just like Bushy's bailout, WON'T WORK!
Aaaagggggg!!!! I know, I shouldn't of done it. But I just HAD to take a peek. And what I saw was almost too depressing for mere words to describe.
So, this afternoon I logged on to my 401K, just to see how the poor thing has been faring these past coupla weeks. It started hemorrhaging pretty badly a couple of months back, lost first 1/4, and then about 1/3 of its value. But oh, my GOD..... today it's down just a few dollars shy of being only HALF it's former value. A mere shadow of its former self. Now there's not even enough money left in it to buy a decent used car.
I guess now there's only one thing left to do when we reach a point in our lives when we can no longer work, and need to retire. That would involve a gun and a single bullet. Well, mabe 2 bullets. (My aim is pretty bad.....)
Social Security is a retirement "insurance" sm
as with any insurance you usally do draw more than you pay in! If you have a (for example) $250,000 life insurance policy, do you think you are going to pay in $250,000 for it?
All this complaining about people drawing SS but I tell you if you are paying in and happen to have a catastrophic illness and have to draw disability benefits, you will be glad you paid in.
How ironic that you lecture about
when the administration you support apparently has never heard of it.
I find it ironic
you both spelled imbecilic incorrectly. Okay everyone can blast me now for being the spelling police. Fire away.
I just found it ironic
The way she describes Obama is how the serpent is described. That's all. Relax.
Obama is not everything to assume I see evil in everything. Besides, I never said he was evil. I just haven't been lured into his candy promises just because of his "velvety" voice and great rhetoric. He's good, I'll give him that.
LOL...that is kind of ironic...(sm)
One thing I have noticed though is that after EVERY administration (dem or pub) we always find out that things are always worse than portrayed. That's one thing I like about Obama's idea of transparency in gov. I doubt it will be perfect, but I think it might be the beginning of gov accountability that we haven't seen before.
Have you been to whitehouse.gov yet? Pretty awesome. It shows everything from his agenda with explanations to the actual executive orders he does. I'm sure some will say it's slanted in favor of Obama, but I think it would be hard to dispute when they are showing the actual documents he signs.
Pretty ironic, isn't it............ sm
or maybe not, that the complainer was from another country who came to the United States to seek a better life. Maybe her visa/citizenship papers need to be reviewed. Perhaps she would be less "offended" if she were to go back where she came from.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.
Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.
Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.
Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.
Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.
that you people spew out that we refuse to listen to intelligence explanations of your view points and yet....I do believe you refuse to listen to our intelligent explanation of our view points. I have listened to your side and I still feel that the Obama administration is wrong in what they are trying to accomplish. We have no money and yet our government keeps spending it and handing it out like we have loads of it. It honestly amazes me that you people can't see the problem with this.
As for me....I have listened to both sides and I'm watching what is going on as opposed to just listening to Obama's mesmerizing teleprompter speeches. His words and his actions are two different things. I've made my decision and yes, I want Obama to fail because I feel that his agenda for our country will ruin it and who would want that.
It is also ironic that the same people who protested and complained about Bush never seemed to call themselves unpatriotic but now because a crat is in the white house, we are all unpatriotic for questioning his motives and judgment. The double standards make me wanna puke.
As for the comments about the tea parties....I think it is rather rude and offensive for people to assume that the tea parties were nothing but a hate democrat/Obama rally. For those of you who can't get it through your thick skulls....this isn't about democrats. I do believe there were many signs that said republicans suck too. How do you explain that if it was a rally against the democrats? As for Obama, this isn't entirely about Obama. It is about government as a whole. So for those saying that it was a racist rally.....give me a break. You can't blame everything on race here and yet that is all I hear. You don't agree with Obama so you must be racist. That just shows how narrow minded and racist some of you are. There are other issues out there and all some of you can focus on is race. Trust me....Obama's race is the last thing on my mind right now.
middle name is Hussein? I mean, you don't have to be a Bible-believing Christian to think that it is totally eerie and shows that God has probably completely taken his hand off of America to "let it be whatever it wants to be" since we are not listening to Him anymore anyway. Everything seems to be anti-God nowadays and so we'll just have to see what is going to happen in the next 4 years. You think it was bad in early 2000, you just wait and see how bad America is going to get. I'm not for or against Obama in any way, I just think that he is just a "symbol" of what is going to be happening to America - false prosperity and feel-good speeches - but I think the antichrist in one of the nations will spill its wrath against us in a might way.
If my people who call me by name will humble themselves and turn from their wickedness then I will heal their land and show mercy....2 Chron.
What I find so dang ironic about this bailout...
is that the people who got us INTO this mess are the major negotiators in this bailout. Just shakin' my head. No one should vote those slackers back in, that's for sure!! Pelosi for lying to cover it up, Dodd and Frank for being up to their eyeballs in it, Obama for being asleep at the wheel, too busy running for President to pay attention to the looming danger...grrrr. I am not a Democrat, but if I was I would be screaming to the high heaven at my party for selling me down the river. Sigh.
Ironic that you are on the Politics board when you aren't American
At least that what you say, that you're not from American and are European.
Interesting indeed...
Okay, now that I'm satisfied that you are indeed the poster I thought you were, I'm outta this thread.
I have decided to not even read the conservative board any more, let alone post there.
My suggestion is we respect their board and stop posting there, as they have asked us to do, and that they in turn stop posting on our board, as we have asked them to do.
Anybody want to bet on who can't stay away from which board?
Where is sam today?
I am missing her viewpoint on today's issues. Sam, are you lurking?
No flaming, please, by the peanut gallery.
the one today at the U of K
The men were charged with disorderly conduct related to the hanging of the effigy. They were also charged with burglary and theft at a fraternity house where police said the materials came from. They were not charged with a hate crime.
UK President Lee Todd said the effigy violates the university's code of ethics, and Fischer faces punishment that could include expulsion.
From what I read, it is not considered a hate crime because: It's also true that as long as it was clear that the hanging figure represented Obama or another prominent black politician rather than a private citizen, it wouldn't be legally actionable as a hate crime. Our laws give broad latitude to clear expressions of political opinion, as opposed to incitements to violence against ethnic groups.
is that as of today?
Is that as of today or as of Nov 4th. I am asking this seriously, not a smart aleck comment. I have read that since 11/4 something like 42 electors have joined in one or more of the suits to order production of the B/C before they vote. No, I am not sure of the actual number, but I know I did read that they had joined in the suits because they felt it would be a constitutional violation to vote until the issue had been definitively put to rest as apparently they felt enough doubt had been raised. What I read said they felt this way because the SC is actually considering the writ of certiorari instead of just tossing it.
Yes, that is as of today.
This is a clear-cut, speculation-free figure.
But they said it was today.
Well, then if it is old, CNN SUCKS.
Where have you been today?
why is it when something you perceive to be negative towards Obama comes to light,you choose to believe it ain't so?
No pot was stirred. Decision was made with the blessings of Obama to basically let the terrorists off the hook who blew up the USS Cole. Now, if you don't know anything about that or you don't have a family member who was blown to he!! on that ship, then I suppose it wouldn't concern you, even though it should. These families were not "organized". They heard the ruling that said all the terrorists who blew up their children will get a free pass!! Bush didn't drop the charges against them! Obama did! Where have you been?
And no, if you were watching your TV, you would see they are not being let back on the grounds; even the liberal cameras are now focusing on that.
Since your head has been in the sand, you might like to know that Obama stirred this pot. He asked the families of those murdered to meet with him. HE asked THEM!
Sorry, but he started this little ball rolling all by his lonesome.
How sad that today
people are so willing to throw their children to the lions. If they're not aborting them, they're encouraging them to engage in a behavior that will mean a multitude of disease, early death or lifelong mental problems, and all under the guise of "tolerance." You should be ashamed. This mother is on the right track.
I read about this today.
What I find the most interesting is that he feels "...and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."
marks the location of current message within thread
