You could not have asked for a bigger gun than a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, albeit retired, to speak up for the judiciary. By speaking up for the judiciary, she spoke up for the legal system itself. She pointed out that without an independent judiciary to protect American Freedoms, our society and our country will disentigrate into a dictatorship. She pointed out that the Republicans that have attacked the judiciary ("Justice" Sundays come to mind) pose a direct threat to our contitutional freedoms.

Usually when judges or justices correctly decide a case or issue, neither of the parties are completely happy. Nonetheless, it is NOT the place for any judge to act as a rubber stamp for the government or for the rich and powerful. If we are all to be equal under law (and yes, that does includes you Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush) we need an independent and courageous judiciary to stand up for our freedoms. Justice O'Connor pointed that our nation's founders believed that an independent judicary was essential to protect individual rights from excesses of the other branches of government. Otherwise, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing.

Now, considering that O'Connor was one of the deciding votes in Bush v. Gore that handed the presidency to current administration, (in contradiction to all her previous rulings regarding right of each state to conduct its own affairs) I cannot help but feel that her speech may have come much too late to save this republic and to reverse her holding giving power to Bush and his cabal. Under this administration, the number of judges appointed to the federal bench is over 205 out of the 1,267 sitting federal judges. Right now, the federal juriciary is full of judges, including the last two appointees to the Supreme Court, that are beholden to corporations, the government, the rich and powerful. Both Roberts and Alito both have track records of consitently siding with corporations over the less powerful, often in contravention of settled law. Additionally, there have been times that ethics required that they should have recused themselves for conflict of interest by owning stocks or having other interests in a corporation that was a party to the case they were hearing.

We have returned to that Wilsonian "Golden Era" (for minority of the rich only, because the vast majority of Americans suffered in poverty during that time - unchecked pollution, child labor, no safety regulations, no social security, no pensions,no health care, ect.) in which in all suits against giant business interests such as the Railroad, always prevailed. In law school, all you had to remember in any case from that era that involved the railroad was that the railroad always won. That continued until a decision written by Benjamin Cardozo, a long time champion of the little guy, convinced his fellow Justices, that it was good idea that railroads put in warning devices at vehicular crossroads. That it was ridiculous to expect that it would be sufficient for indiviuals to stop and get out of their cars to see if a train is coming for when they got back into their cars, they may not see that train rounding the bend at a high speed. Benjamin Cardozo was also one of the jurists that eventually sided with FDR and ruled that Social Security was legal and that other matters could be regulated by the federal government. I hope there are still some judges sitting on the federal benches that recall that their duty is to the Constitution and to the balance of power that protect individuals from the abuses of the powerful.