Talk:Sandra Day O'Connor

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

quick thoughts

most of this is from recall and synthesis of books i lost during one of my nomadic periods. If i can source some of it anytime soon, i will. There was a Rehnquist book about the history of the Supreme court, a Woodward/Bernstein book, The Brethern, and a book put out by an LA Times reporter called something like Turning Right. There were also several more books, including two by the over-rated blowhard L. Tribe, that were part of my reading during a period that included a good deal of supreme court history and case law.

O'Connor oftentimes has gotten the short-end of the stick from analysts as the court turned to the right of the political bi-polarity. She is a classical conservative, and this implies countenancing improperly adjudicated law, instead of shaking up society. Bad law that is accepted as law in a society is still the law. She pretty much stated this at her Senate Confiormation Hearings, but nobody listened. She is often defined as "the swing vote" or the "centrist". This is incorrect, she is a conservative. The legal concept, stare decisis is a pure conservative view.

What has happened is the Supreme Court Justices who are activist right are now defined as "conservative". I am not implying conspiracy here; instead journalistic slothfulness, and always the primal need to simplify for the lowest common denominator in mass media.

WIkipedia's conservatism stub (yes, i still do get sucked into the morass now and then) fails to address this issue properly. They are more than happy to define just about anything under the sun that is to the right on a linear political scale as being a form of conservatism. (i am glad i didn't run into this article when i was feeling combative...)

Real Conservatives don't want to shake the life raft; they want to let the sleeping dogs alone; they don't poke sticks into hornets' nests. They do not engage in high falutin' sematical academicism by sprinkling nonsensical oxymorons like postmodern into their speech or in their writings. Real Conservatives would Never; Not Ever, defend a Republican president's actions with positive comparisons to FDR (this recent abberation confounds and astounds me).

Other Western societies that i've come in contact with, either through visits or reading, define the political scale differently; centrist, center right/left, right/left, green, nationalistic, socialistic, marxist, etc. It seems to be an odd American habit to define all politics as bipolar.

It would be injustice to define O'Connor's Supreme Court caselaw as centrist in my opinion.

cheers Hugh Manatee

Suggestion: Could someone please insert a photo of O'Connor? Not my expertise. Artificial Intelligence 10:26, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)