Supreme Sandra

AZ Republic Opinion Page ^ | AZ Republic Editorial Staff

[hsmomx3]

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor shows how far you can go with an open mind and a flair for moderation.

President Reagan, who elevated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, called her "a person for all seasons."

[laweeks]

Sandra Day is sitting on the only credentials she has. Another example of so-called conservatives trying to appease the liberal weinies. Imagine how many people have been hurt (affirmative action, sodomy approval) and killed (abortions) because of her appointment and the appointments of these other SCOTUS activists.

[pabianice]

That kind of unpredictability suggests that it is the Constitution, the law and individual merits of the case, rather than an overarching political philosophy, that guide her decisions.

... except when the Constitution annoys her Elitist sensibilities. Then she ignores it, as in Michigan...

[BonnieJ]

She ALWAYS seemed to be a moderate and seems to feel she is "voting her conscience" but her viewpoints have changed a bit with the years. She's not as bad as Souter! He is a total hypocrite. I think it's reasonable that their opinions change as all of ours do to some extent. Think of the transformation in his later years of another Arizona native, Barry Goldwater! Some thought he had actually become a liberal on social issues, & he certainly was very conservative in the 1960's.

[thoughtomator]

O'Connor is guided by her own personal biases and a lust for expanding the power of the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Lawrence v. Texas is damning proof that she is not at all concerned with what is in the Constitution.

[dirtboy]

That kind of unpredictability suggests that it is the Constitution, the law and individual merits of the case, rather than an overarching political philosophy, that guide her decisions.

Funny, I don't recall seeing "compelling state interest" in the Constitution. I DO recall seeing a certain equal protection clause there.

[ewing]

This didn't come with a 'hurl alert?'

[lawdude]

I live in AZ and believe her to be a head-case. She is irrational and her written opinions are almost non-sensical.

[ErnBatavia]

This didn't come with a 'hurl alert?'

Shoulda been a "XXX Projectile" alert...

[Monster Zero]

Hey, speaking of which: What's the latest on prospective resignations from the court? I've heard that O'Connor, Buzzi-Ginsberg, Rehnquist and I forget which other one are short. What's the deal?

[Don Corleone]

Arizona can be proud.

Of the Grand Canyon and Jon Kyl!

[LibertarianInExile]

Amen. I'd rather read a good book than read her crap.

On the other hand, I can think of a lot of authors whose books I'd put down to read Thomas' or Scalia's opinions instead.

She's a worthless quota appointment. I am glad Thomas was worth the fight, and I wish Reagan had appointed a real constitutionalist.

[Antoninus]

"Sundried" O'Connor proved to be a weak, contradictory, vacillating creature--hardly someone to be proud of. In ruling the way she did on the recent "right to sodomy" case, Ol' Sandra managed to contradict a wholly opposite rendering she gave just 17 years previous. What changed in the interim? I'd reckon she had a few "gay" law clerks who's sob stories of how "oppressed" they are stabbed at her poor little sensitive heart.

The sodomy ruling put this court on the level of the Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson in terms of sheer idiocy. Let the eternal record show that Sandy voted with the idiots.