"ending Gore’s hopes for changing the outcome in Florida" is a funny way to spell "allowing partisan thuggery preventing votes from being counted in Florida to stand", but other than that, this is a remarkably fair obit for a person who played a complex role in the 20th century's politics.
Justice O’Connor was a worthy successor to Justice Stewart. Both were sane, impartial, prudent jurists, conservative but careful, and conscientious about the Court’s prestige and reputation as the nation’s highest arbiter in fairly deciding difficult questions. She deserved a better successor than Justice Alito, who has shown none of those qualities.
Bush v Gore wasn’t just the Supreme Court putting a hand on the scales for the majority’s favored presidential candidate, it ensured the dominance of that faction on the Court itself. Choosing the president is choosing who hires the justices. O’Connor felt safe to retire with a Republican in the White House. That arrangement doesn’t sound ethical to me.
The challenge of adhering strictly to the rule of law originates outside of court rooms. We expect our government officials (including judges) to meet high standards, and they will sometimes disappoint. But our current crisis involves a more dangerous pattern of discounting without sound reason settled law, due process, and established precedent.
Bush v. Gore to some liberals taints her over and above anything else. Some also basically handwave her more liberal leaning rulings as if they were of little note. This is in my view is unfair.
[This is a fair obit.]
She was a complex historical figure and for a Reagan appointee especially, she had many good votes.
Yes. Amy Howe's obit at SCOTUSBlog provides a link to an interview where she said maybe it was a mistake for them to decide the merits. She did not firmly say she was wrong. Justice Powell, for instance, was more open about saying he likely voted the wrong way in Bowers v. Hardwick.
The DC Circuit's decision denying dismissal of the civil suit, and including the concurring opinions, is a very long albeit comprehensive document laying out in great detail inter alia the actions of tRump during the entirety of the Jan6 events, demonstrating with legal rigour that his actions were that of Candidate tRump and less that of president tRump, and that - contra Nixon v Fitzgerald - the question of "absolute immunity" does not hold, and that the civil suit by Capital police and some members of Congress move ahead. Furthermore, it seems as though the appellate opinion suggested that further expostulation of the immunity business will be taken up during the civil trial to come, where Defendant tRump will have his "day in court" to argue his position.
Although tRump's lawyers no doubt will appeal at some point to SCOTUS, I don't believe that the Court will take up yet another tRump "immunity" appeal...they are done with that and with him, full stop.
O'Connor also voted with the majority 5-4 in Bowers v. Hardwick.
She also concurred with the majority 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas.
(This could have been, and might still be, a whole post. It didn't fit here.)
"ending Gore’s hopes for changing the outcome in Florida" is a funny way to spell "allowing partisan thuggery preventing votes from being counted in Florida to stand", but other than that, this is a remarkably fair obit for a person who played a complex role in the 20th century's politics.
Justice O’Connor was a worthy successor to Justice Stewart. Both were sane, impartial, prudent jurists, conservative but careful, and conscientious about the Court’s prestige and reputation as the nation’s highest arbiter in fairly deciding difficult questions. She deserved a better successor than Justice Alito, who has shown none of those qualities.
Bush v Gore wasn’t just the Supreme Court putting a hand on the scales for the majority’s favored presidential candidate, it ensured the dominance of that faction on the Court itself. Choosing the president is choosing who hires the justices. O’Connor felt safe to retire with a Republican in the White House. That arrangement doesn’t sound ethical to me.
But President Obama was prevented from appointing the unobjectionable Merrick Garland. It is even worse than you say.
I was trying to confine my remarks to Sandra Day O’Connor’s part in the theft of the Supreme Court. But, yeah, you’re not wrong.
The challenge of adhering strictly to the rule of law originates outside of court rooms. We expect our government officials (including judges) to meet high standards, and they will sometimes disappoint. But our current crisis involves a more dangerous pattern of discounting without sound reason settled law, due process, and established precedent.
Bush v. Gore to some liberals taints her over and above anything else. Some also basically handwave her more liberal leaning rulings as if they were of little note. This is in my view is unfair.
[This is a fair obit.]
She was a complex historical figure and for a Reagan appointee especially, she had many good votes.
Day O'Connor said in later years that she regretted her Bush v Gore vote, though never explicitly repudiating it.
Yes. Amy Howe's obit at SCOTUSBlog provides a link to an interview where she said maybe it was a mistake for them to decide the merits. She did not firmly say she was wrong. Justice Powell, for instance, was more open about saying he likely voted the wrong way in Bowers v. Hardwick.
A disaster, but an undeservedly powerful one, unfortunately.
The DC Circuit's decision denying dismissal of the civil suit, and including the concurring opinions, is a very long albeit comprehensive document laying out in great detail inter alia the actions of tRump during the entirety of the Jan6 events, demonstrating with legal rigour that his actions were that of Candidate tRump and less that of president tRump, and that - contra Nixon v Fitzgerald - the question of "absolute immunity" does not hold, and that the civil suit by Capital police and some members of Congress move ahead. Furthermore, it seems as though the appellate opinion suggested that further expostulation of the immunity business will be taken up during the civil trial to come, where Defendant tRump will have his "day in court" to argue his position.
Although tRump's lawyers no doubt will appeal at some point to SCOTUS, I don't believe that the Court will take up yet another tRump "immunity" appeal...they are done with that and with him, full stop.