Now that her career is “in the can,” as the filmmakers say, we can comment on the plotline, the conflicts, the climax and conclusion.
To begin with, Sandra was an affirmative-action appointment, a tip of the Gipper’s hat to the fairer sex, in fulfillment of his campaign promise to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. And as such, it is a cautionary tale, a fair warning to “keep your eye on the ball,” as it were, in making important appointments, a reminder that gender, like race, (the whole “diversity” scheme, in fact) should never be considered.
O’Connor represented, from the very beginning, the very essence of the Republican “moderate” left and in her history one can trace the tendencies of that faction as though her life were literally intended as an allegory.
O’Connor was not a “liberal” in the Ruth Bader Ginsburg sense, someone who consistently attempts to steer the nation in the direction of Soviet Gomorrah. Sandra, in fact, tried to steer the nation to a sort of decent “middle” as her aristocratic mind conceived it. The problem is that the Supreme Court has no business “steering” the nation anywhere. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of law: steering the nation is the exclusive right of the people, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO GOVERNMENT, except where they specifically delegate that privilege to elected LEGISLATURES. In no circumstances do Supreme Court Justices or their philosophies have any part in the process except by the text of the Constitution as clearly written. That was the whole point of the American Revolution. “Government BY the people,” remember? And it was in that point that Sandra Day O’Connor’s entire career as a Supreme became a monumental failure.
Typical is her opinion in June of 2000 when she helped a lawless majority create a “constitutional right” to a partial birth abortion in Stenberg vs.Carhart. Entirely aside from the monstrousness of the decision’s effect (to enable the legal slaughter of innocent people), it demonstrates Sandra’s quintessential penchant for High Crime: there is not a single word of it that references the language of the Constitution. Without a Constitutional justification the Supreme Court’s dictates are illegal. And Sandra never even pretended to be interpreting the Constitution.
Even when she voted right she got it wrong.
In Ararand vs. Pena (in 1995) O’Connor joined the Constitutional Justices to strike down a specific use of overt racial discrimination. The case dealt with awarding a Federal highway contract to a less worthy contractor on the basis of his Hispanic name. But she adamantly refused to make non-discrimination a general rule. No consistent principle was enumerated or applied. O’Connor actually expects these things to be decided on a case-by-case basis through a legislative veto by the Supreme Court, no less. Unbelievable! It gives no guidelines for legislatures to write laws or for executives to implement them. It simply magnifies the unconstitutional case-by-case legislative role of the Court. As a direct result there has been no improvement in Federal Law. To this day no one has any idea how the Court will rule in these cases. This unprincipled ambivalence is at the root of both litigiousness and the overall breakdown of the rule of law in our society. This is a deadly anarchy that threatens the whole future of America. And it wastes billions of dollars every year for good measure.
Throughout her career-ette the problem wasn’t that O’Connor couldn’t SEE Constitutional principle, it’s that she felt no obligation to look. And it is here Sandra Day O’Connor is an absolute prototype of the so-called “moderate” Republican Left. They will not, cannot, in fact, articulate any rational political philosophy. They want, instead, to pick and choose, issue by issue, as from a political dessert-buffet without regard to the Constitution, history, or right and wrong. It is all a matter of personal preference to them, like choosing the color of a cocktail dress, or selecting an expensive restaurant. It is the exercise of their Imperial position in society. Any imposition on that prerogative by Judeo-Christian principles violates their sense of aesthetics. They want the economic and social blessings that have been showered on America without the “inconvenient” restraints of the morality that produced them.
Sandra should have stayed in the Legislature, where she could have articulated her condescension and remained popular with the County Clubbers, like, say, Jennifer Dunn. On the Supreme Court she was intolerable.
Now in her defense it will be pointed out that she was in the exact middle of the Court, agreeing almost as frequently with the Constitutionalists as with the Sado-Commies. And when she agreed with Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist she was an effective and powerful ally. But is that really a defense? Let’s take a closer look.
Imagine that your search for an occasional caregiver or baby-sitter for your young children results in a highly recommended professional. Let’s call her “Sandy”. Suppose over the years Sandy proves to be hard working, reliable and a spectacular cook, going out of her way to do the little extras and helping the children succeed. But at some point you make two discoveries. The first is that Sandy has taught the children advanced techniques of shoplifting which they use regularly. And the second is that she has a special friend that occasionally comes over in your absence… and sodomizes the children.
Do tell me… as she resigns… will you praise her for her acts of competence?
Or are some things intolerable?
Now the first circumstance is that O’Connor was a consistent vote for a woman’s right to kill her children, nothing less. Now one could say that the real damage was done by Roe vs. Wade, long before O’Connor was named to the bench; that her concurrence with it was just run-of-the-mill genocide. But she never once attempted a Constitutional argument for this autocracy and one can only guess how many little killings have occurred for which she is morally responsible. It is not constitutional and it is not tolerable. But I’m not done.
On June 26, 2003 Sandra Day O’Connor concurred with the majority of the Court in Lawrence vs. Texas to assert a Constitutional Right to a sexual perversion. It was, itself, coincidentally, an extreme legal perversion that struck down legitimately established democratic law based on purest fiction. This decision, left as rendered, will act, as did Roe vs. Wade, in the same way as a deadly virus gradually released into the nation’s whole water supply. It will, by exponentially increasing degrees, destroy American sexual morality and have the effect of literally ruining the lives and health of whole segments of whole generations.
Sandra did this on the basis that such laws discriminate against those who wish to break them. I’m not kidding. Sandra Day O’Connor says a law against homosexual sodomy is unconstitutional because it discriminates against those that wish to break it. With this reasoning nothing can be illegal. It is, quite literally, total anarchy. “Whoopee!” (One might say.) “Grab the guillotine, Vern, we’re gonna have some fun tonight!”
And that is why it is absolutely not acceptable for George Bush to nominate “another Sandra Day O’Connor” to the Supreme Court. Is it worth a fight? Our servicemen have given their lives on the battlefield for smaller issues.
Real moral justice would be for Sandra Day O’Connor to spend the rest of her life in prison. And this is a “moderate” approach, for O’Connor is guilty of treason and treason is a capital crime.
“But, Doug,” you say, “treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war!”
I agree.
We are at war, for instance, in the Middle East because Osama Bin Laden attacked New York on 9/11, but he only killed a few thousand people and it was but a ripple on the surface of the Republic.
But this enemy attacked the very heart of the Republic and has killed millions. And Sandra Day O’Connor and her anti-Constitutional cohorts intentionally abandoned their duty to protect us. They violated their sworn oaths of office, to uphold the Constitution and used the power they were given to join the attack.
Roe vs. Wade was an act of war, Kelo vs. New London was an act of war, and Lawrence vs. Texas was an act of war, more surely than if bombs had been placed in the nation’s legislatures. This deliberate sabotage has fractured the very foundation of the Republic: Our lives, our property, our morality and the rule of law itself. Entrusted with protecting our laws they have broken the highest laws specifically violating the Constitution and they’ve done it over and over and over again.
Our nation’s most dangerous enemy is this cabal of Criminal Justices, themselves. They have declared war on us from within and we must rid ourselves of them and their kind forever. This is a war that must be fought. And if our nation is to survive it must be won. You, my friend, must fight for your country with everything that is given you. For the sake of our children, do not hesitate.
