huntinsonovagun Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Here it is. I am tired of looking at it. If you have time, read through it for me. I'd appreciate it. Later!! Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O’Connor was born in Texas in 1930 and she grew up on a cattle ranch owned by her father in southeastern Arizona. Sandra was the oldest of three siblings, a single child until she was eight. Due to the lonely life the Day’s lived on their ranch, which was more than twenty miles for the nearest neighbors, Sandra was kept company by the many pets that lived on the ranch, and she also occupied herself by reading. Her parents sent Sandra to live with her grandmother in El Paso to obtain an education from a private academy for girls. O’Connor then graduated at the age of sixteen with remarkable grades. O’Connor later went on to further her education at Stanford University, with a major in economics with the intent of applying her knowledge to managing a cattle operation such as her parents had run. O’Connor’s interest in law was sparked due to a family disagreement actually concerning the ranch. Sandra soon hereafter decided to enroll in Stanford’s law school upon receiving her baccalaureate, graduating in 1950. O’Connor soon had her law degree after only two years, an entire year sooner than most law students. O’Connor graduated third in her class of 102, and also married classmate John Jay O’Connor. Sandra found much trouble in landing a job since graduating from law school, due to being female at this time period. O’Connor was only offered one job as a secretary, but she decided to take a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California, until her husband graduated from Stanford the following year. The O’Connor’s then moved to Germany while John was drafted into the Army in the Judge Advocate General Corps. While John was fulfilling his duties, Sandra worked as a civilian lawyer in the Quartermaster’s Corp. John served his time in Germany in three years, when the O’Connor’s moved to Arizona where they decided to settle down and begin a family in 1957. Mr. and Mrs. O’Connor had three boys within the following six years in Arizona. During this time in Arizona, due to the troubles Sandra had previously experienced in finding a job, she decided to open her own law practice, where she had a wide variety of small cases, also a result of not having a built up a reputation for herself. O’Connor then temporarily quit her practice after the birth of her second son, at which time she began donating time to various organizations such as Salvation Army, the Arizona Republican Party, and at several local schools. After five years of being a full time mother, Sandra was nominated to the Arizona Court of Appeals as an assistant state attorney general. Arizona Governor Jack Williams appointed O’Connor to the senate after one member had resigned. Sandra held her seat in the senate for two more terms before becoming a majority leader. Many Arizona republicans urged O’Connor to run for governor in 1978, but this was clearly not of her interest. Only two years later, she was nominated by President Reagan to serve on the Supreme Court, where she was the first woman in history to serve as a supreme justice. O’Connor was chosen to serve on the Supreme Court by President Reagan mainly because Reagan had promised in his campaign to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, due to his criticism from his disagreement of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1980. It is highly unlikely O’Connor would have been appointed had the women’s rights movement not occurred when it did. O’Connor was also known to be a strong conservative, which most likely influenced Reagan’s appointment of her, opposed to another woman. O’Connor is also said to act much like a strong conservative male, which may have come as a surprise to many, but she did favor some select feminist views, such as favoring the “women’s right to abortion,” but she also voted to give hospitals the right to decline an abortion for any reason, all while she was in the Senate. Her select views part of the reason she had 91 approval votes from the Senate when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. O’Connor frequently votes with William Rehnquist, a strong conservative who had also graduated from Stanford University the same year as O’Connor, with Rehnquist graduating first in the class. Only after a few terms as a member of the Supreme Court, O’Connor had begun to establish a name for herself, usually voting with the conservatives, but she is also known to look at minor details, occasionally leaning away from the votes of the majority. O’Connor is known for her support of federalism and also for her “cautious interpretations of the Constitution.” Many legal scholars have found O’Connor to be very conservative, yet she always seems to approach every issue with an open mind and always with a concern for the best interest. O’Connor often seems to have the deciding vote in many issues, such as keeping a sixteen-year-old murderer from receiving the death penalty, where the vote was five to four. O’Connor seems to be very precise in deciding what she believes and what she does not believe should be legal. In some instances, she appears to be pro-choice, but on the other hand she has supported a view to control women’s access to abortion. Another illustration would be her opposition of fellow Republicans’ views on pension plans and trying to remove these plans that had failed to recognize women were equal to men, but she then would not allow her plan to go into effect, disappointing many feminists. O’Connor also shows a strong concern for the rights of minorities in many of her votes. O’Connor is very serious and she is also very dedicated in her work. In 1988, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, but she did not let this disease slow her down. O’Connor attended an appointment at which she was the speaker the day before her surgery, and then was back to work for an oral discussion ten days later, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society. O’Connor has been a member of the Supreme Court for twenty-three years and is still currently serving at the age of seventy-four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogdoc Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... I see a few changes I would make---grammer changes but it otherwise it looks good. I'm sure tominator will critique it for you. good job todd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganHuntr1 Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] I'm sure tominator will critique it for you. todd [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, hes good at fixing typing errors. Trust me, I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntinsonovagun Posted November 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... Thanks guys....never fails to have mistakes. Like I said, I am tired of looking at it. One down, one to go for this week......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tominator Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm sure tominator will critique it for you. todd [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, hes good at fixing typing errors. Trust me, I know. [/ QUOTE ] michigan, you forgot your apostrophe in "he's" lol, you make it too easy. don't they teach you that stuff up north? ----> <----- (got to get my michigan digs in now, because i'm afraid the wolverines might slay the buckeyes this year ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntingInMaine Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... I have made a few revisions and will paste the whole thing below, but I do have a few questions about a few ambiguities. In the second paragraph you have the following sentence: "She enrolled in Stanford’s law school upon receiving her baccalaureate, graduating in 1950. " What was she graduating from? Is this her economics graduation or the one from law school? If it is from the economics major I would change it to say "She enrolled in Stanford's law school after receiving her baccalaureate for economics in 1950." In that same paragraph you state "She was offered only one job as a secretary, but decided to take a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. " If she was only offered one job as a secretary, where did the deputy county attorney job come from? Maybe it could be written "She was offered very few jobs and most were for positions such as secretary. She was finally offered a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California, which she accepted." Paragraph five starts out with "It is highly unlikely that O’Connor would have been appointed to this position if the women’s rights movement had not occurred when it did." The women's rights movement did not begin then, it had been going on for a LONG time before this happened. Something like "It is highly unlikely that any woman would have been appointed to this position if women weren't strongly protesting for rights and opportunities equal to that of men." would be more accurate. I would also change the first sentence in the 7th paragraph. "It seems O’Connor often has the deciding vote in many issues, such as keeping a sixteen year old murderer from receiving the death penalty where the vote was five to four. " I am not familiar with the case, so the following may not be accurate, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say! " It seems O’Connor often has the deciding vote in many issues. She was the determing vote in the case of a sixteen year old who was facing the death penalty and the vote was five to four in favor of death." (like I said, I am not sure what way the vote count was going, just making an assumption there) All in all a pretty good paper, but I wouldn't use the word feminist as many times as you did (and I did change it in my version of your paper). They are women's issues, not just feminist issues. Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O’Connor was born in 1930 in the state of Texas. She grew up in southeastern Arizona on a cattle ranch owned by her father. She was the oldest of three siblings, but an only child until the age of eight. The nearest neighbor was more than twenty miles away, so she was kept company by the many pets that lived on their ranch and spent lots of time reading. Sandra’s parents sent her to live with her grandmother in El Paso so she could obtain an education from a private academy for girls. She graduated at the age of sixteen with outstanding grades. O’Connor furthered her education at Stanford University and majored in economics. She planned on applying her knowledge to managing a cattle operation like the one her parents had run. It was a family disagreement concerning the ranch that sparked her interest in law. She enrolled in Stanford’s law school upon receiving her baccalaureate, graduating in 1950. Sandra had her law degree after only two years, a full year sooner than most law students. She graduated third in a class of 102. She also married classmate John Jay O’Connor. Because Sandra was female, she had difficulties finding a job after graduation. She was offered only one job as a secretary, but decided to take a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. She stayed in this job until her husband graduated from Stanford the following year. The O’Connors then moved to Germany. John was drafted into the Army in the Judge Advocate General Corps. While he was fulfilling his duties, Sandra worked as a civilian lawyer in the Quartermaster’s Corp. John served his three years in Germany and then the couple moved to Arizona. They decided to settle there and began a family in 1957. Mr. and Mrs. O’Connor had three boys in the next six years. Due to the previous difficulties Sandra had finding a job suited to her level of education, she decided to open her own law practice in Arizona. She hadn’t been able to build up a reputation for herself and as a result she had a wide variety of small cases. O’Connor put her practice on hold after the birth of her second son. During this time she started donating her time to various organizations such as the Salvation Army, the Arizona Republican Party, and several local schools. After spending five years as a full time mother and volunteer, Sandra was nominated to the Arizona Court of Appeals as an assistant state attorney general. The governor of Arizona, Jack Williams, appointed her to the Senate after one member had resigned. She held her seat in the Senate for two additional terms before becoming a majority leader. Many of Arizona’s Republicans urged O’Connor to run for governor in 1978, but it was clearly not in her best interests. It was only two years later that she was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Supreme Court. She became the first woman in history to serve as a Supreme Court justice. It is highly unlikely that O’Connor would have been appointed to this position if the women’s rights movement had not occurred when it did. Reagan had made campaign promises to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court due to criticism of his disagreement of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1980. She was also known for her strong conservative position, which likely influenced Reagan’s appointment of her, as opposed to other possible female candidates. Many have said Sandra conducts herself like a strongly conservative male, which may have come as a surprise to many. She did favor some select views supporting women, such as a woman’s right to abortion. However, while she was in the Senate she did vote in favor of giving hospitals the right to decline performing an abortion for any reason. Her select views are part of the reason why she had 91 approval votes from the Senate when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. O’Connor’s votes frequently agree with William Rehnquist, another strong conservative who also graduated from Stanford University the same year Sandra did. Rehnquist graduated first in the class. It only took a few terms as a member of the Supreme Court for Sandra to establish a name for herself. She usually votes with the conservatives, but is known to look at minor details and occasionally leaning away from the majority vote. She is also known for her support of federalism and “cautious interpretations of the Constitution”. Many legal scholars have found O’Connor to be very conservative, yet she always seems to approach each issue with an open mind and strong concern for the best interest of all. It seems O’Connor often has the deciding vote in many issues, such as keeping a sixteen year old murderer from receiving the death penalty where the vote was five to four. It appears that she is very precise in deciding what she believes should or should not be legal. In some instances she appears to be pro-choice, but she has also supported controlling women’s access to legal abortions. Another example is her opposition to fellow Republicans’ views on pension plans and the attempt to remove these plans that failed to recognize women as being equal to men. She wouldn’t allow the plan to go into effect, disappointing many women. O’Connor also shows a strong concern for the rights of minorities in many of her votes. Sandra O’Connor is very serious and dedicated to her work. In 1988 she was diagnosed with breast cancer, but she didn’t allow this disease to slow her down. She attended an appointment at which she was the speaker the day before her surgery. According to the Supreme Court Historical Society, she was back to work for an oral discussion just ten days later. At the age of seventy-four, she is in her twenty-third year as a member of the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tominator Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] Here it is. I am tired of looking at it. If you have time, read through it for me. I'd appreciate it. Later!! Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O’Connor was born in Texas in 1930 and she grew up on a cattle ranch owned by her father in southeastern Arizona. Sandra was the oldest of three children , a single child until she was eight *delete*. Due to the lonely life the Day’s lived on their ranch *awkward* , which was more than twenty miles for the nearest neighbors, Sandra was kept company by the many pets that lived on the ranch, and she also occupied herself by reading. Her parents sent Sandra to live with her grandmother in El Paso to obtain an education from a private academy for girls. O’Connor then graduated at the age of sixteen with remarkable grades. O’Connor later went on to further her education at Stanford University, majoring in economics with the intent of applying her knowledge to managing a cattle operation such as her parents had run. O’Connor’s interest in law was sparked due to a family disagreement that concerned the ranch. Sandra soon thereafter decided to enroll in Stanford’s law school upon receiving her baccalaureate, graduating in 1950. O’Connor soon had her law degree after only two years, an entire year sooner than most law students. O’Connor graduated third in her class of 102, *new sentence here* and also married classmate John Jay O’Connor. Sandra found much trouble in landing a job since graduating from law school, due to being female at this time periodsorry, but this is funny. as it reads here, Sandra could possibly change sexes later in life. . O’Connor was only offered one job as a secretary, but she decided to take a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California, until her husband graduated from Stanford the following year. *delet this* The O’Connor’s then moved to Germany when John was drafted into the Army in the Judge Advocate General Corps. While John was fulfilling his duties, Sandra worked as a civilian lawyer in the Quartermaster’s Corp. John served his time in Germany in three years, when the O’Connor’s moved to Arizona where they decided to settle down and begin a family in 1957. Mr. and Mrs. O’Connor had three boys within the next six years in Arizona. *delete* During this time in Arizona, due to the troubles Sandra had previously experienced in finding a job, she decided to open her own law practice, where she had a wide variety of small cases, also a result of not having a built up a reputation for herself. O’Connor then temporarily quit her practice after the birth of her second son, at which time she began donating time to various organizations such as Salvation Army, the Arizona Republican Party, and at several local schools. After five years of being a full time mother, Sandra was nominated to the Arizona Court of Appeals as an assistant state attorney general. Arizona Governor Jack Williams appointed O’Connor to the senate after one member had resigned. Sandra held her seat in the senate for two more terms before becoming a majority leader. Many Arizona republicans urged O’Connor to run for governor in 1978, but this was clearly not of her interest. Only two years later, she was nominated by President Reagan to serve on the Supreme Court, where she was the first woman in history to serve as a supreme justice. O’Connor was chosen to serve on the Supreme Court by President Reagan mainly because Reagan had promised in his campaign to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, due to his criticism from his disagreement of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1980. It is highly unlikely O’Connor would have been appointed had the women’s rights movement not occurred when it did. O’Connor was also known to be a strong conservative, which most likely influenced Reagan’s appointment of her, opposed to another woman *delete* . O’Connor is also said to act much like a strong conservative male, which may have come as a surprise to many, but she did favor some select feminist views, such as favoring the “women’s right to abortion,” but she also voted to give hospitals the right to decline an abortion for any reason, all while she was in the Senate. Her select views are part of the reason she had 91 approval votes from the Senate when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. O’Connor frequently votes with William Rehnquist, a strong conservative who had also graduated from Stanford University the same year as O’Connor, with Rehnquist graduating first in the class. Only after a few terms as a member of the Supreme Court, O’Connor had begun to establish a name for herself, usually voting with the conservatives, but she is also known to look at minor details, occasionally leaning away from the votes of the majority. O’Connor is known for her support of federalism and also for her “cautious interpretations of the Constitution.” Many legal scholars have found O’Connor to be very conservative, yet she always seems to approach every issue with an open mind and always with a concern for the best interest. O’Connor often seems to have the deciding vote in many issues, such as keeping a sixteen-year-old murderer from receiving the death penalty, where the vote was five to four. O’Connor seems to be very precise in deciding what she believes and what she does not believe should be legal. In some instances, she appears to be pro-choice, but on the other hand she has supported a view to control women’s access to abortion. Another illustration would be her opposition of fellow Republicans’ views on pension plans and trying to remove these plans that had failed to recognize women were equal to men, but she then would not allow her plan to go into effect, disappointing many feminists. O’Connor also shows a strong concern for the rights of minorities in many of her votes. O’Connor is very serious and she is also very dedicated in her work. In 1988, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, but she did not let this disease slow her down. O’Connor attended an appointment at which she was the speaker the day before her surgery, and then was back to work for an oral discussion ten days later, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society. O’Connor has been a member of the Supreme Court for twenty-three years and is still currently serving at the age of seventy-four. [/ QUOTE ] not bad. you can tell you struggled with it. it's awkward in most spots. the way it's worded now, i'd be willing to be you get a C or C- on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganHuntr1 Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm sure tominator will critique it for you. todd [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, hes good at fixing typing errors. Trust me, I know. [/ QUOTE ] michigan, you forgot your apostrophe in "he's" lol, you make it too easy. don't they teach you that stuff up north? ----> <----- (got to get my michigan digs in now, because i'm afraid the wolverines might slay the buckeyes this year ) [/ QUOTE ] Yep, you better be scared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeNRA Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... WHERE WERE YOU GUYS & GALS TO DO MY HOMEWORK FOR ME WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palssonater Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... No kidding! This would have helped me out big time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntinsonovagun Posted November 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... HAHA....it's not like they're doing it for me......Just part of it. I'll read the revisions when I find a little time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntinsonovagun Posted November 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... Chris, Huntinginmaine.....I personally want to thank you guys for your time in helping me. Like I said, this paper kicked my tail, all I am hoping for is a passing grade right now, so hopefully he will grade me as kind as you did, Chris. You two deserve a pay raise....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganHuntr1 Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] You two deserve a pay raise....... [/ QUOTE ] Suckup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntingInMaine Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... You are very welcome for the help. It is always a good idea to have someone else look over your paper, or put it away for a day and then come back to it. As you said, you were looking at it for way too long and that makes it difficult to find your errors. Maybe you can critique my paper on incentive rewards and a job description I have due the middle of the month! LOL Don't just shoot for a passing grade, you should be looking to excel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tominator Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Re: Critique yet another paper...if you don\'t mind.... [ QUOTE ] You are very welcome for the help. It is always a good idea to have someone else look over your paper, or put it away for a day and then come back to it. As you said, you were looking at it for way too long and that makes it difficult to find your errors. Maybe you can critique my paper on incentive rewards and a job description I have due the middle of the month! LOL Don't just shoot for a passing grade, you should be looking to excel! [/ QUOTE ] ditto and, you're welcome, anytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.