# Sandra O'Connor Resigns - Democrats Will Find "Extraordinary Circumstances" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712 "2005-07-01T15:53:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/81 "2005-07-01T19:12:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I may be wrong, but isn’t **legislating** the act of creating and/or passing new laws? Maybe in a technical sense. But, we are specifically talking about judges “legislating from the bench”. Obviously judges cannot create and pass new laws. Only legislators can do that. Judges just make decisions about laws. However, does this mean that we can conclude it’s impossible for judges to “legislate from the bench?” Obviously it is possible for judges to overstep their bounds and do something more akin to “legislating” than “judging”. (Think in terms of theoreticals if you disagree that this is already occurring.) > [@](#): > > In this instance, I fail to see that the court created or passed a new law. Technically, true. > [@](#): > > Urging the legislature to create a new law is not the same as legislating. Yes, but it is legislating from the bench. It’s the closest thing they can do to legislating. The point is they shouldn’t be doing this at all. Passing laws, proposing laws and creating laws is not the job of the judges. Frankly, with major things like CFR passing through the net, I’d like the judges all around the US to focus more on protecting the constitution than making up new material out of whole cloth. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/82 "2005-07-01T19:16:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > OK. > > Agree with outcome, disagree with process: Roe v Wade (Abortion). In the thread that I cited earlier, Bricker identified these “right process” cases: > [@Bricker](#): > > 1. Right process, right result: Carroll v. US > 2. Right process, wrong result: Kyllo v. U.S. Do you agree with him? > [@](#): > > Disagree with the outcome, agree with process: McCain Feingold (Camapaign Finance Reform). > > The elected representatives in the house and senate passed this awful bill. Then the stinker of a bill wasn’t veto’d by the president, as it should have been. When it went to the SCOTUS, I thought for sure they would not allow it. Unfortunately, they did. This law is clearly in violation of the first ammendment. However, it did go through all the right processes and the SCOTUS wasn’t out of line to rule on it in the first place. Huh? Ok, but we were talking about legislation from the bench. Here look: > [@](#): > > Our treatment of contribution restrictions reflects more than the limited burdens they impose on First Amendment freedoms. It also reflects the importance of the interests that underlie contribution limits—interests in preventing “both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and the eroding of public confidence in the electoral process through the appearance of corruption.” > **[FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/)** > > Get the latest legal news and information, and learn more about laws that impact your everyday life by visiting FindLaw Legal Blogs. Compare that with this: > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > **[First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw](https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html)** > > First Amendment - Religion and ExpressionAmendment Text | Annotations Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free How is this case any different from _Roe v. Wade_? I don’t see any of those words in the first amendment. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying my statement should get me a “free pass” or that nobody can comment on it. You are free to agree or disagree with my claim. How are we supposed to evaluate a claim that you admit is not provable? > [@](#): > > The simple fact is that I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot provide a “cite” as requested. To disprove me all you need to is show me a court made up of conservatives that is as out of control with legislative attempts as the 9th CA Circuit Court. You wouldn’t be able to, because one doesn’t exist. Before you said it was the 7th Circuit. I assume that was a typo. I’ll stick with my response that both the 7th and the 4th Ciruits are good counterexamples. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/83 "2005-07-01T19:16:38Z")
I’m too lazy to read all the messages in this budding train wreck, so I’ll just like to address the borderline-flame-of-an-OP with a few short statements: 1. The Supreme Court is the highest court for the _entire_ country. 2. Therefore, the POTUS best serves the _entire_ country by nominating a SC Justice who is acceptable to the _entire_ country. 3. Pissing off half the nation with a right-wing ideologue candidate[sup]_[/sup] does **not** serve the entire country. [sup]_[/sup] Oh, right, like _that_ won’t happen… ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/84 "2005-07-01T19:17:10Z")
Sorry. Work issue. Have to go… Quick point: Money is absolutely a part of speech. Preventing me from spending my money with a group to speak for me is clearly blocking my speech. I can’t fly off like superman to every instance of my 2nd ammendment rights being trampled. I have the NRA to do that. I pay them and they spend my money to fight for the cause I believe in. By muzzling them (and the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, and others) you are clearly blocking speech. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/85 "2005-07-01T19:31:36Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The efforts to split up the court have not been successful thus far, but the court is still out of control… 1. I realize that the article called the court California’s, but it was ignorant of it to do so. While the 9th Circuit is headquartered in California, its jurisdiction includes many states, Guam, and CNMI. It is a federal court. 2. How will splitting the court reduce the number of opinions, or the workload. If anything, it will increase the cost of the same workload. 3. It is disputed whether the 9th Circuit is all that liberal, or all that [reversed](http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v37-issue1/documents/chemerinsky.pdf) (pdf). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/86 "2005-07-01T19:33:13Z")
BTW, **Debaser,** the idea that opposition to CFR is an essentially conservative or libertarian position is also fundamentally misconceived. It is an essentially pro-plutocratic position, but no more than that. From the same book, pp. 256-259: > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporation, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . **Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, "The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office."** > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” > > One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies. > > Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significiant influence on public policy. If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year. You can’t get much more conservative or much more libertarian than Barry Goldwater. And even he was horrified at what money has done to American politics! What would he have said to your “money is part of speech” argument? ---
**Author:** ![DirkGntly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@DirkGntly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkGntly)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/87 "2005-07-01T19:39:41Z")
Back to the OP… …I believe the Dems will filibuster merely because, to them, the fact that this is a \*_Supreme Court_ nomination will qualify it as “extraordinary circumstances.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/88 "2005-07-01T19:41:26Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Maybe in a technical sense. But, we are specifically talking about judges “legislating from the bench”. Obviously judges cannot create and pass new laws. Only legislators can do that. Judges just make decisions about laws. However, does this mean that we can conclude it’s impossible for judges to “legislate from the bench?” > > \ > > The point is they shouldn’t be doing this at all. Passing laws, proposing laws and creating laws is not the job of the judges. Frankly, with major things like CFR passing through the net, I’d like the judges all around the US to focus more on protecting the constitution than making up new material out of whole cloth. First, in the MA case, I fail to see that the judges made up anything new. They made a decision, explained the decision, and then it was up to the legislature to do something or not. Saying “This law is no good because ABC, but it would be fine if ABD _because…_” is not legislating, to me. It’s a part of clarifying the decision. That’s what we pay judges to do. I disagree with you, also on > [@](#): > > Quick point: Money is absolutely a part of speech. Preventing me from spending my money with a group to speak for me is clearly blocking my speech. I agree with the example above re: a microphone. You have the right to speak your mind, but no inherent right to speak loudly. Certainly there is no right to speak so loudly that others cannot be heard. Is there? With regard to the OP > [@](#): > > I predict that the Democrats - specifically, the seven Democrats that signed the accord concerning judicial nominations - will find “extraordinary circumstances” in President Bush’s nominee, no matter who it is. If you only meant the 7 Dems who signed the accord, why did you bash all Democrats? It was unnecessarily inflammatory. (btw, I am and always have been a registered Independent voter. No one tells me what to do but me.) ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/89 "2005-07-01T20:32:11Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ve already given one. Roe v Wade. > > Another good example is the MA decision that forces the legislature to pass a law allowing gay marriage. This is completely outside the scope of their authority. Let’s get our facts straight here. All the Mass supreme court said is that the rights given in the Mass constitution applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. You don’t agree with that? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/90 "2005-07-01T21:23:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How about giving some examples of liberals “legislating from the bench?” Well, that’s going to be a tough one. I’ll have to back at least a week. The SC decided that eminent domain has no definition beyond that which individual States might wish to legislate. This was addressed in the Constitution and gutted by the SC. It was an unpopular decision that spanned both political parties and it was done by legislating from the bench. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/91 "2005-07-01T21:23:28Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > An actual truce? An actual agreement between the parties where both agree to make a compromise which involves giving up some of their power? When was the last time they did that? The Republican part of the deal “consult before nominating” could be satisfied with a quickly dashed off email. This is hardly a binding constraint. Similarly the Democrats side was vague and just as **Bricker** predicts, can be weaseled with impunity. This was a farce from the beginning because the public was starting to get annoyed with those assholes in congress yelling at each other over the issue. So the battle was tabled to let them get on with more important stuff(like laying low and letting the headlines turn to Brad and Angelina or Affleck and Garner, thereby preventing further slides in the congressional approval polls) until it actually matters. Correct. Absolutely correct analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/92 "2005-07-01T21:24:43Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > The most important thing the Dems can do is to keep the GOP from running away with the “conservative=Constitutional, liberal=activist” line. Of course they don’t want impartial justices–they want activists who are active in their direction, who are also adept at finding Constitutional justifications for their activist stances. > > Someone might ask, “Mr. President, you say that you want to appoint a Justice who will rule impartially, and who will not inject his or her personal political alignment into the process. If this is the case, why is everyone on your list of possibilities a demonstrable right-wing idealogue?” Is Thomas an activist who is active in the conservative direction? Or does he simply interpret the text strictly, regardless of whose ox gets gored? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/93 "2005-07-01T21:28:25Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I’m too lazy to read all the messages in this budding train wreck, so I’ll just like to address the borderline-flame-of-an-OP with a few short statements: > > 1. The Supreme Court is the highest court for the _entire_ country. > > 2. Therefore, the POTUS best serves the _entire_ country by nominating a SC Justice who is acceptable to the _entire_ country. > > 3. Pissing off half the nation with a right-wing ideologue candidate[sup]_[/sup] does **not** serve the entire country. > [sup]_[/sup] Oh, right, like _that_ won’t happen… Nonsense. The point of electing a leader is that the leader leads with his vision of how the country should be run. If the people are not pleased, they throw him out and elect another one. The idea that a President should nominate someone he doesn’t like because of the division in the country on issues is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/94 "2005-07-01T21:29:14Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ve already given one. Roe v Wade. > > Another good example is the MA decision that forces the legislature to pass a law allowing gay marriage. This is completely outside the scope of their authority. Dude, you gotta check this stuff out before you say it. Here is what the MA court ordered. > [@](#): > > We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. > **[FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/)** > > Get the latest legal news and information, and learn more about laws that impact your everyday life by visiting FindLaw Legal Blogs. It ruled that the lower court erred in sustaining the statute, and then stayed its order 180 days so that the legislature could try to fix the statute if it wanted to. That’s a totally different thing from forcing the legislature to do anything. Moreover, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is apparently allowed to give advisory opinions when requested by the legislature (as many state courts are). I know this because they asked for one in response to this very case. [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html) That is why it is significant that it is a state case. Some states differ from the federal government in their philosophy regarding the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of government. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/95 "2005-07-01T21:31:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > With regard to the OP If you only meant the 7 Dems who signed the accord, why did you bash all Democrats? It was unnecessarily inflammatory. Because the title has limited space, and I couldn’t think of a short word to describe the “Gang of 14” participants. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/96 "2005-07-01T21:43:26Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Let’s get our facts straight here. > > All the Mass supreme court said is that the rights given in the Mass constitution applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. > > You don’t agree with that? Sure. Every man, gay or straight, has the legal right to marry a woman. Every woman, gay or straight, has the right to marry a man. THAT would be the equal application of the law. Myopic, but equal. What the MA court was innovate – they applied the Massachusetts Constitution’s equal protection clause in a way that was a dramatic departure from the way it had been construed before. I argue that a court should not be the agency to apply a radical departure of interpretation. When the effect of a court’s ruling is to make dramatic new law, they should stay their hand and permit the legislature to act. In Hawaii and Alaska, courts also found that the state constitutions required same-sex marriage. But in both states, when the electorate was consulted, they responded with state constitutional amendments clarifying that no, in fact, that ISN’T what their constitutions meant. In Massachusetts, the constitution cannot be amended so quickly. But a constitutional amendment DID pass the Massachusetts legislature last year restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. It must pass again this year, and then the voters must approve it, for it to become part of the constitution, but it’s on track to do that. Every single state that has put the issue to the voters has rejected the notion of same-sex marriage. Every single one. If same-sex marriage can only exist by being imposed by judges, not the legislature, what does that say about our notions of self-governance? And if we have judges that are willing to innovate so dramatically when interpreting the constitution, what does that _do_ to our notions of self-governance? Mr. Bush should - and will - nominate a judge who will interpret the federal Constitution by reading the words of the document, not using the penumbras that only judges can see. And that, alone, should not rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” in the seven Democrats’ minds. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/97 "2005-07-01T22:05:01Z")
I have a [gasp] litmus test for how Democrats should respond when Bush makes his nomination: If the Family Research Counsel and the Christian Coalition _aren’t_ hopping mad enough to chew neutronium after he announces the name, then Democrats should filibuster unitl their eyes bleed. If Bush prostrates himself before the American Taliban, Democrats have a duty to shutdown the Senate, until after the next presidential election, if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/98 "2005-07-01T22:41:18Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I have a [gasp] litmus test for how Democrats should respond when Bush makes his nomination: If the Family Research Counsel and the Christian Coalition _aren’t_ hopping mad enough to chew neutronium after he announces the name, then Democrats should filibuster unitl their eyes bleed. If Bush prostrates himself before the American Taliban, Democrats have a duty to shutdown the Senate, until after the next presidential election, if necessary. And if the Republicans go ahead and use the “nuclear” option and remove judicial nominations from the realm of filibusters? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/99 "2005-07-01T22:41:24Z")
**Bricker** , summarized: “Blah, blah, blah. Will of the people.” I call bullshit. [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm](http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm) Now, you all the newbies out there, he has, (but hopefully will not be, again), been challenged on this claim, by myself, and many others. He seems to be hoping that just because the debates are on the second page, people will forget how re-re-re-re-re-done this topic is. Maybe, if no one else takes this up, he will get the message, and we will not have any more of this hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712/100 "2005-07-01T22:52:30Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > **Bricker** , summarized: “Blah, blah, blah. Will of the people.” > > I call bullshit. [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm](http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm) > > Now, you all the newbies out there, he has, (but hopefully will not be, again), been challenged on this claim, by myself, and many others. He seems to be hoping that just because the debates are on the second page, people will forget how re-re-re-re-re-done this topic is. Maybe, if no one else takes this up, he will get the message, and we will not have any more of this hijack. I reply, “Bullshit, yourself.” From your link: > [@](#): > > Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual. > Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. I don’t disagree with those points. But I ask: “Who has the role of deciding what ‘basic human rights and freedoms’ are?” You, personally? Me, personally? Judges? What will be your position on that question if President Bush selects the next three Supreme Court justices, and the Court then decides that an unborn child is a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment? After all, unborn children are minorities; may I quote back your cite to you and demand your acquiesnce? Answer this post, Scott. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-oconnor-resigns-democrats-will-find-extraordinary-circumstances/310712.md?page=6)