March 22, 2006
The Slippery Slope To Dictatorship
We may have celebrated too soon: CBWSTGJR may yet have cause to regret our support for the dashing young jurist with the impeccible taste in china patterns. Via that peripatetic buffet of manliness, we learn that a small group of extremists are once again trying to foist their narrow-minded world view on the rest of us.
We'll just bet you thought we were about to go off on another rant about judicial activism, didn't you? Well shame on you.
Because retired SC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, may a lock of her silvery hair be enshrined in imperishable crystal forever as a token of America's great loss, has courageously come forth from hiding (you do know she was whisked off by the Secret Service to an undisclosed location after being threatened by a post in an Internet chat room, don't you?) to issue a stern warning to those who would threaten the basic freedoms we Americans hold dear:
Now that she's left the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor has a few things to get off her chest. One of the first was to warn that the nation could slide into dictatorship if harsh critiques of the judiciary – from the likes of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Tom DeLay – go unanswered.
"We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary," she said this month at a Georgetown University conference on corporate law. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
As a woman, I must say I'm just thrilled to see Ms. O'Connor demonstrate the sense of caring and concern for others that only women can bring to the bench - no doubt her well-considered, soothing words will go far to heal the partisan divisions that seem to be tearing this nation apart.
And it's so refreshing to see her avoid damaging gender stereotypes like the pervasive notion that women can't take the heat of modern-day political infighting. O'Connor's vocal advocacy of women's issues, combined with Justice Ginsburg's lucid and irrefutable legal rationale for using international law to interpret the Constitution, ("we can learn from others," "we can join hands with others, "we should "share our experience") present a compelling case for appointing more women to the federal bench.
But on to more important matters.
It appears that yet another of our Constitutional rights is under assault. If this isn't a crushing refutation to the dangerously extremist theory of originalism, I don't know what is:
History fails to attribute to patriot Patrick Henry the statement "Give me sex toys or give me death," so therefore it's not surprising that the legal battle continues over whether the right to obtain and use appliances intended for sexual gratification is included within the liberty protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Another case of the Founding Fathers being asleep at the wheel. Oh well, I'm sure some smart person has a theory in his hip pocket to deal with this national emergency.
Posted by Cassandra at March 22, 2006 06:41 AM
All such cases should be routed through the increasingly expert 11th Circuit with the Law School faculty of the University of Chicago a permanent Friend of The Court, perhaps advancing International courts decisions, such as the French.
Posted by: Paul of York at March 22, 2006 10:25 AM
I'm sure that would breathe new life into the whole penumbral rights movement.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 22, 2006 01:25 PM
> And it's so refreshing to see her avoid damaging gender stereotypes like the pervasive notion that women can't take the heat of modern-day political infighting.
What planet does this woman reside on where women -- particularly dominant ones -- aren't, from early on, centered amongst the most vicious and merciless political infighting?
Women are FAR more vicious, and FAR less supportive, as a group, than men are. The notion that women are "more peaceful than men" is a total crock. It wasn't the Roman fathers telling their sons to "come back with their shields, or upon them", after all. For every Lysistrata there are a hundred women giving "their boys" a good shag before they go off to war.
The notion that men don't want women in politics might be right -- but it's because women are far more likely to harbor grudges for minor slights, and far less likely to "let bygones be bygones" for prudent reasons, not because of any actual unjustified anti-female bent.
I've had female friends express concerns with their sisters who were out with their girlfriends -- because, unlike guys out in a group, the females would not watch each others' backs and make sure everyone got home safe, even if incapacitated.
Women certainly have their strengths, but, despite all the claims of feminists everywhere, beatific angelitude ain't one of them.