I've had a hard time figuring out just why Justice O'Conner decided to retire at this time, when it was obvious (to me) that the intent of those responsible for choosing her successor was to select someone who would place their special interests above the law.

Perhaps it was in part because it would allow her to speak out more freely? It is certainly a message that needs to be shouted, and not something that she was really free to say from the bench.

Unfortunately, there are many precedents to indicate that no one - or at least not enough ones - will listen.

I certainly hope that she will repeat this message until someone - other than a few of us here, perhaps - does begin to "get it." I do not doubt that she places herself at some risk by speaking; and I suspect that she's fully aware of that risk.

I can remember that when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court I had some reservations about how her "personal bias" might affect the Court. I have since learned to respect her judicial conduct as above and beyond reproach (even in a couple of rare opinions I didn't quite agree with).

My only disagreement with her recent statement is that I believe that we are much further along on the path to "dictatorship" than is implicit in what she's said thus far. I'll be waiting anxiously to see if this speech was just a warm-up for the rest of the story.

John