O'Connor: Iraq Study Was 'So Out Of My Field'

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor admits to initially feeling a little out of her element when she was invited to join the Iraq Study Group to offer new alternatives to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"I wasn't sure I should do it,"she tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview in the current issue. "It was so out of my field of judging. I don't know anything about the military."

President Bush has all but rejected the study group's recommendations but O'Connor is unwilling to criticize Bush.

"There are probably no perfect answers," she tells Assistant Managing Editor Debra Rosenberg in the February 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, February 5).

O'Connor also talks about her decision to retire. In the spring of 2005, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist publicly battling thyroid cancer, the two justices discussed timing. "We talked a little bit,"O'Connor recalls. "I was concerned about whether he had an intention to step down since his plans might have altered my own. It's hard for the nation to grapple with two [retirements] at once," she says. "He indicated he didn't want to step down." So she realized she had to go first.

O'Connor retired so she could spend more time with husband John, battling Alzheimer's disease. O'Connor has had to place her husband at a care facility near their Arizona home.

"It's such a miserable disease. It's so sad. It's so hard. I did the best I could," O'Connor says. "He wants me there all the time."

It's been a difficult transition, says former Sen. Alan Simpson, a family friend. "It's tough to go home at night and no longer have this warm,witty guy there," he says of O'Connor.

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

'Faith-Based' Case Deals with Narrow, But Important Issue, Group Says

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether taxpayers may challenge the Bush administration's use of general appropriations to promote its "faith-based" agenda.

In 2005, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Wisconsin taxpayers had legal standing to challenge President Bush's creation of a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and other promotion of his faith-based initiative.

The Bush administration asked the high court to overrule the decision, arguing that under current court precedent, taxpayers may only challenge congressional appropriations of funds if the money goes to religious organizations. The executive branch's use of general appropriations to set up its faith-based office and promote a faith-based agenda are not fit subjects for legal challenge, the administration argued.

"This is a relatively narrow question," says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "but it's quite important. We believe that no tax money should be spent to advance religion. It's essential that the justices uphold the principle that taxpayers can go to court when their money is being used to advance religion."

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation will be the first church-state case to come before the high court since two Bush appointees -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito -- have taken seats there.

Says Lynn, "Both Roberts and Alito expressed general support for church-state separation during their confirmation hearings. This case will be a good opportunity for them to put that viewpoint to good use."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.



If you can't contribute, please support us by clicking the Google ad above. Thank you!