Former US Supreme Court Judge O’Connor says criticizers of SCOTUS are uneducated

Former US Supreme Court Judges says the darnedest things. This writer has stewed on a comment made by former Judge Sandra Day O’Connor at the end of July 2012 and just can no longer keep himself from responding to her tripe.

In the past year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued 2 or more highly questionable rulings. The first being the unlimited campaign contributions (aka Corporations are people too) and the second being Obamacare.

About a month after the infamous Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Former US Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor asserted in various snobbish/elitist legal news venues that persons who criticize the Supreme Court’s rulings just need to be educated. In particular, she indicated rank and file Americans who question SCOTUS need to be educated in civics and the role of the judiciary.

The inference being that WE THE PEOPLE are a bunch of uneducated hicks unable to understand the basis of SCOTUS rulings and fundamental right and wrong. (These are the least “high brow” reporting of Ms. O’Connor’s comments that I can find ) Quoting from the first article:

Sandra Day O’Connor Wants You To Be Educated Before You Speak

Sandra Day O’Connor, former Supreme Court Justice, is tired of all the negative Nancys throwing shade at Chief Justice John Roberts, whose decision to uphold the health care reform act got a lot of people talking. After he was called a “traitor” to the court, O’Connor stepped up in his defense, citing a lack of misinformation as the reason for the backlash.

“It’s unfortunate because I think comments like that demonstrate only too well a lack of understanding some of our citizens have about the role of the judicial branch,” she said…..

Before anything else is said, this writer states he never accused US Supreme Court Chief Justice John “Humpty Dumpty” Roberts of being a traitor to the Court. Humpty Dumpty ( Chapter 6) Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution and the Vision the Founding Father’s had for this Country. That vision including maximum individual liberty and maximum individual self-sufficiency. Liberty and tyranny is a Zero Sum game. Every gain in authority by the government must necessarily result in the loss of liberty for the individual. All SCOTUS has done with these recent rulings is reduce the liberty of the individual.

That having been said, this author must ask, what civics “education” does Ms. O’Connor mean?

  1. Does she mean the propaganda laden indoctrination in civics for young folks?… with the false representation that the US Judicial System makes careful decisions using the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted, relevant facts in evidence? And that, therefore, the decisions of any Court, but especially the US Supreme Court are beyond questioning? Or,
  1. Does she mean the carefully guarded secret that the US Judiciary doesn’t make decisions pursuant to the Rule of Law, but in reality has reverted to the Divine Right of Kings and will ruthlessly crush any citizen that dares to criticize or expose the corrupt judiciary for what it really is?

Former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, can you please elaborate on what you mean?

Ms. O’Connor, WE THE PEOPLE are not stupid. Even an uneducated person can usually deduce for themselves when they are being cheated, lied to, “handled” and treated with duplicity. The Internet is blowing the lid off the dirty little secrets of the US Judiciary. WE THE PEOPLE are campaign notes on our experiences with the US judiciary. At the moment, most rank and file American’s do not know how corrupt the judiciary is, and a large portion of those who do, have seen what you do to the leaders of Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) and are afraid to speak up for fear of similar Government retaliation. This article will more properly inform rank and file Americans of “What’s going on?”(

In this article we are going to cover the US Judiciaries corrupt rulings and actions in the following areas:

  1. 11th Amendment;
  2. Property Rights and the Divine Right of Kings;
  3. Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions
  4. Minnesota and the 1st Amendment Right to Petition
    1. Article 1 Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution
    2. MN Appellate Court Case A10-1205 MN Lawyers not required to treat clients ethically;
    3. Unconstitutional Reprisal and Punishment of Minnesota Citizens seeking Minnesota Judicial TAR/ FRAP 35/40 Motion
  5. Obamcare

Using the fictional hillbilly characters of Mavis, Amos and Sandy, this writer will meet and exceed the evidentiary standard of Clear and Convincing in establishing that SCOTUS and the US Judiciary have blatantly abandoned the Rule of Law, engaged in Simulated Litigation and blatantly just ignored the plain meaning of words.

(Suggestion to the reader – Please read the following, imagining Mavis, Amos and Sandy speaking with a hillbilly drawl while “Dueling Banjos” [The theme song

To continue reading, please click here

Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense”


Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Google Plus


End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National Minneapolis

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica

Justice in Minnesota #JIM

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP

Get out of our House #GOOOH

Critical Thinking Notice – This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.

Exit mobile version