That being said I am concerned about the impending retirement of Justice O'Connor because I do not want the court to be stacked in one direction or another and I am expecting Bush to try and push a very conservative justice to replace her.
A Supreme Court Justice has a hell of a task to work upon. Their understanding and interpetation of law based upon the Constitution has potential to impact society in a very large way. And since it is basically an appointment for life it is even more important to be careful who gets to wear the robe.
But as anyone who remembers Earl Warren knows a justice may fool you from time to time on how they are going to vote.
Here is a very brief rundown about her.
"I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country," she once said. "It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It's important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves."
At times, the constant publicity was almost unbearable. "I had never expected or aspired to be a Supreme Court justice. My first year on the court made me long at times for obscurity," she once said.
On the court, O'Connor generally favored states in disputes with the federal government and for enhanced police powers challenged as violative of asserted individual rights.
In 1985, she wrote for the court as it ruled that the confession of a criminal suspect first warned about his rights may be used as trial evidence even if police violated a suspect's rights in obtaining an earlier confession.
O'Connor wrote the 1989 decision that struck down as an unconstitutional form of affirmative action a minority set-aside program for construction projects in Richmond, Va.
In 1991, she led the court as it ruled in its first-ever decision on rape-shield laws that states may under some circumstances bar evidence that a defendant and his alleged victim previously had consensual sex.
O'Connor once described herself and her eight fellow justices as nine fire fighters.
"When (someone) lights a fire, we invariably are asked to attend to the blaze. We may arrive at the scene a few years later," she said.
O'Connor was 51 when she joined the court to replace the retired Potter Stewart. A virtual unknown on the national scene until her appointment, she had served as an Arizona state judge, and before that as a member of her state's Legislature.
A fourth-generation Arizonan, she had grown up on a sprawling family ranch.
The woman who climbed higher in the legal profession than had any other member of her sex did not begin her career auspiciously. As a top-ranked graduate of Stanford's prestigious law school, class of 1952, O'Connor discovered that most large law firms did not hire women.
One offered her a job as a secretary. Perhaps it was that early experience that shaped O'Connor's professional tenacity. She once recalled a comment by an Arizona colleague: "With Sandra O'Connor, there ain't no Miller time."
"I think that's true," confessed the justice whose work week most often extended beyond 60 hours.
But she played tennis and golf well, danced expertly with her husband, John, and made frequent appearances on the Washington party circuit.
O'Connor was embarrassed in 1989 after conservative Republicans in Arizona used a letter she had sent to support their claim that the United States is a "Christian nation."
The 1988 letter, which prompted some harsh criticism of O'Connor by legal scholars, cited three Supreme Court rulings in which the nation's Christian heritage was discussed.
O'Connor said she regretted the letter's use in a political debate. "It was not my intention to express a personal view on the subject of the inquiry," she said."
Influence. That is the word that comes to mind, influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment