Madame Justice: Sandra Day O’Connor

I don't know much about her. Her career was a bit before the time I became interested in politics.

The one time I paid attention to her was on a radio interview, so it must have been NPR. This was after her retirement. I was impressed with her intelligence, which significantly outshone the radio host. I don't remember any details except that she took yes/no questions and clearly explained the nuance of the issues. The interviewer was not prepared for that depth of analysis.

She was probably a very nice person, I have no reason to doubt that. But her adherence to the law was not how I expect. Her cowardice on the abortion rulings was terrible. She was about as bad as Scalia. I hope we don’t suffer from either again.

At least she had the grace to leave at a good time. Imagine if she were still on the court until today. . . Voters and states would still not have a say on the legality of abortions. She was perfectly fine with taking away that power from us.

I’m against abortion. I think killing babies is murder, and I have no sympathy for the argument that women need that in order to control their bodies. The time to control bodies come much earlier, in my opinion.

But if voters decide the question, I’m much more likely to accept it. I’d vote against it and for politicians that vote against it, but it wouldn’t anger me as much as dictating the matter from a court. Courts should understand law. They have no special skills in understanding morality.

On June 27, 2005 Justice O'Connor wrote:

"At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. ... Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

Our guiding principle has been James Madison’s–that “the Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.” ... To that end, we have held that the guarantees of religious freedom protect citizens from religious incursions by the States as well as by the Federal Government. ... Government may not coerce a person into worshiping against her will, nor prohibit her from worshiping according to it. It may not prefer one religion over another or promote religion over nonbelief. Everson, supra, at 15—16. It may not entangle itself with religion. ... And government may not, by “endorsing religion or a religious practice,” “make adherence to religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community.” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

When we enforce these restrictions, we do so for the same reason that guided the Framers–respect for religion’s special role in society. Our Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, and provided for the possibility of judicial intervention when government action threatens or impedes such expression. Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly interferes with private religious practices. When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship. In the marketplace of ideas, the government has vast resources and special status. Government religious expression therefore risks crowding out private observance and distorting the natural interplay between competing beliefs. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both.

see

for full text with citations.

I hope the President making the next couple of SCOTUS appointments will have the wisdom and political independence to appoint judges like Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy to the Court.