I worked for her husband for years. She was down to earth, gracious, unique and fair, and there was even more to her life than could possibly be covered such a short interview.
She did a great job as a Justice on the Supreme Court. We thank her for all she did. We will not forget her legacy. Rest in Peace, Justice O'Connor. We will miss you.
I hope that we can forget her jurisprudence as soon as possible. A justice is to apply the Constitution and the law as each were originally written. She did not do that. Justice O'Connor tried to find compromises on the application of laws before her and considered public opinion in her opinions over and above what the law said or the bounds of the Constitution as originally written. She was a disgrace to her office and to her country.
America was incredibly lucky to have Sandra. She was incredibly witty, sociable and very direct as she hated to dawdle. To even be alive near the end of her career is an honour. Women everywhere owe women like Sandra more than we could ever repay.
Intelligent. Elegant. Charming, Engaging. Thoughtful. We could sure use more people like her. Thankful to President Reagan for having the vision and character to nominate her to The Court.
Today's crew is a great improvement since they actually read and apply the Constitution as it was written, not to be re-written as if it were a statue passed with political compromises in a state legislature. The problem with Justice O'Connor was that she confused her role as a state legislator when she served in the Arizona Senate with her role as a Supreme Court Justice.
Had a great respect for her - she was one who considered the voice of the people and did not cling to her own specific ideology only - she was so pragmatic and logical. She had a centrist voice in some of the country's biggest decisions. A voice of reason is now silent. RIP Justice O'Conner.
The Constitution does not consider the voice of the current electorate. Rather it constrains their voice according to the foundational principles of the U.S. Her decisions were hardly logical. Instead, they reflected her background as a state legislator in which she looked for compromises to appeal to a wider segment of the population to win re-election. As a justice, she should have only performed a strict analysis of a law in light of the U.S. Constitution, as it was originally written, or whether a particular application of the law was consistent with the law as it was originally written. A justice should never consider the effectiveness or desirability of a policy. That is the job of the legislative branch, not the judicial.
If Biden wins next year there is excellent chance Clarence Thomas will expire in those 4 years and we can start to correct the stolen seats in the Supreme Court. Crucial reason to vote for him.
While Sandra O'Connor's life came to a sad end, her stint on the Supreme Court came to an end none too soon. She was ill-suited to be a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Her approach was more that of a legislator looking for political compromises in order to appease all sides in order to keep the confidence of the majority and reflect their views to the extent that she could. That is not what a justice is to do. A justice is not in office to make policy or to appeal to the voters' interests and sensibilities. Rather, a justice should simply review a law and find, in a very formal analysis, whether the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution as traditionally understood or not or whether a application of a statutory law is consistent with the law as written whether or not a majority approves it or whether the law or the Constitution make for sound public policy in the view of the justice.
For some reason, I am not seeing Scott O'Connor's full reply to my comment. I was notified of it and see a bit of it, but not then entire comment when I click it. So, I'll reply to what I can see and that is basically what I have already said. A justice is NOT to consider the wisdom of a law. They are only to judge whether or not the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution as originally written and has been traditionally interpreted throughout our history or whether a particular application of a law is consistent with the law as it is written. Otherwise, the Court becomes a super-legislature that is not answerable to the people.
Only Dave could have pulled off an interview that makes her come across as a common American.
RIP Justice Sandra
Obituary News to the Letterman Channel is like Batman’s red phone to Commissioner Gordon
Sometimes he doesn’t even need that!!
I'm convinced that any guest he's had (who is NOW 75 or older) has their clip already queued up.
It drives up the traffic numbers - brilliant strategy!
Rip Sandra Day O'Connor, you will truly be missed
I guess he never had The Pogues on. 😢
She had a thoughtful, smart, sweet, humorous way about her. How do we get justices that do not hold these qualities? Oh yeah, 'merica.
How do we get justices that do hold these qualities? Oh yeah, 'merica.
My commencement speaker at law school (right after her retirement)
Incredible interview. Almost unbelievable.
I worked for her husband for years. She was down to earth, gracious, unique and fair, and there was even more to her life than could possibly be covered such a short interview.
She was an incredible Justice! God bless her RIP. What a well speaking woman. 🎉
I love hearing the stories of the first women in male-dominated fields; they overcome so much.
She did a great job as a Justice on the Supreme Court. We thank her for all she did. We will not forget her legacy. Rest in Peace, Justice O'Connor. We will miss you.
I hope that we can forget her jurisprudence as soon as possible. A justice is to apply the Constitution and the law as each were originally written. She did not do that. Justice O'Connor tried to find compromises on the application of laws before her and considered public opinion in her opinions over and above what the law said or the bounds of the Constitution as originally written. She was a disgrace to her office and to her country.
Բոլորդ հանդես եք գալիս որպես դատավորներ?, իսկ ուր մնաց ՄԻ ԴԱՏԻՐ,ՈՐ' ՉԴԱՏՎԵՍ ԱՍՏԾՈ ՊԱՏՎԻՐԱՆԸ...+🙏🔥😇**12
She was a class act. Nothing more to say.
America was incredibly lucky to have Sandra. She was incredibly witty, sociable and very direct as she hated to dawdle.
To even be alive near the end of her career is an honour.
Women everywhere owe women like Sandra more than we could ever repay.
A trailblazer if there ever was one.
This was wonderful, thanks...
RIP
RIP Sandra Day O'Connor
Intelligent. Elegant. Charming, Engaging. Thoughtful. We could sure use more people like her. Thankful to President Reagan for having the vision and character to nominate her to The Court.
She was beautiful ❤️
this is a really really good one. thanks dave; barbera
She's from the good old days when the SCOTUS was a respectable institution
@@TatumHildebrand - Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh would like a word.
The liberals on the Supreme Court became woke.
What a life, David❤
It just breaks my heart. Women like her are a rarity in today's world.
Raegan did well appointing her. Rest in power!
Amazing lady. Extremely intelligent and open-minded. Sad in comparison to today’s crew.
Today's crew is a great improvement since they actually read and apply the Constitution as it was written, not to be re-written as if it were a statue passed with political compromises in a state legislature. The problem with Justice O'Connor was that she confused her role as a state legislator when she served in the Arizona Senate with her role as a Supreme Court Justice.
She’d be a better justice now than half the people wearing the robe…
Had a great respect for her - she was one who considered the voice of the people and did not cling to her own specific ideology only - she was so pragmatic and logical. She had a centrist voice in some of the country's biggest decisions. A voice of reason is now silent. RIP Justice O'Conner.
The Constitution does not consider the voice of the current electorate. Rather it constrains their voice according to the foundational principles of the U.S. Her decisions were hardly logical. Instead, they reflected her background as a state legislator in which she looked for compromises to appeal to a wider segment of the population to win re-election. As a justice, she should have only performed a strict analysis of a law in light of the U.S. Constitution, as it was originally written, or whether a particular application of the law was consistent with the law as it was originally written. A justice should never consider the effectiveness or desirability of a policy. That is the job of the legislative branch, not the judicial.
A justice is so clueless compared to the average celebrity on their merry-go-round on late-night TV
No cameras in the supreme court. 🤔
You'd think they make an exception to capture moments like these. Dumb.
She retired while Bush was president. RBG screwed up
If Biden wins next year there is excellent chance Clarence Thomas will expire in those 4 years and we can start to correct the stolen seats in the Supreme Court. Crucial reason to vote for him.
I loved RBG, but she really screwed up at the end by not retiring earlier. Big time.
Her legacy will always be tarnished by that.
I wonder what she would think of today’s Supreme Court.
My son Luke wanted a Letterman jacket, ☺️
While Sandra O'Connor's life came to a sad end, her stint on the Supreme Court came to an end none too soon. She was ill-suited to be a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Her approach was more that of a legislator looking for political compromises in order to appease all sides in order to keep the confidence of the majority and reflect their views to the extent that she could. That is not what a justice is to do. A justice is not in office to make policy or to appeal to the voters' interests and sensibilities. Rather, a justice should simply review a law and find, in a very formal analysis, whether the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution as traditionally understood or not or whether a application of a statutory law is consistent with the law as written whether or not a majority approves it or whether the law or the Constitution make for sound public policy in the view of the justice.
For some reason, I am not seeing Scott O'Connor's full reply to my comment. I was notified of it and see a bit of it, but not then entire comment when I click it. So, I'll reply to what I can see and that is basically what I have already said. A justice is NOT to consider the wisdom of a law. They are only to judge whether or not the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution as originally written and has been traditionally interpreted throughout our history or whether a particular application of a law is consistent with the law as it is written. Otherwise, the Court becomes a super-legislature that is not answerable to the people.
Aww, I loved him on All in the Family. RIP... you'll finally be reunited with Jean Stapleton.
Wow, it has been more than 20 years since Carroll O'Connor died. June 21, 2001, before 9/11.
@@EinsteinsHair I thought Carroll O'Connor was Chief Justice in the SCOTUS!? She dyed?
White courtesy phone to any celebrity over the age of 90.😳
------------------------- was she liberal or happy ...... thanks4sharing
What a cool lady