it has been said that the supreme court is like a family. a family composed entirely of in-laws. 42 years ago, i was assigned to help then judge o connor join that family. it was my first day in a new job at the justice department, and i was proud to be part of her team. i thought i did a pretty good job. after all, the justice was confirmed 99-0. we must have had something to do with that. only many years later was i told she thought i was slow in getting material to her. i should have learn ed that whe she had a challenge or responsibility before her, her approach was simple and direct. get it done. the way she participated in oral argument at the court is a good example. justices have many different styles on the bench. some like the back and forth of debates, others pose unusual hype otheticals, some badger counsel to get concessions. others spell out a particular theory at length and ask for comment. now all this is fine and good, but justice o connor was different. af
defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the united states. while note ing the case is not case about politics, it is a case pure and simple, said the judge, about language. but the aclu thinks otherwise and is helping andrea in her appeal against paying the daily fines. senior supervising attorney at the civil liberties union of new jersey said this, the town, the government is obligated to abide by the constitution and the constitution doesn t limit our right to criticize government officials based on the use of profanity. indeed the judges s ruling would seem to conflict with the supreme court decision of california in which a teen wearing a jacket with f the draft on it was found to be within his first amendment rights. here s what andrea told me on my sirius xm radio program this week. my opinion is a political thing here in town. that s all it is. what do you mean? it s a democratic play.