Friday, July 01, 2005
Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee
A former roommate called me this morning to alert me to the fact that Justice O'Connor was stepping down - "Is it sad that when I found out, I just screamed in fear?"
Well, yes...for lots of reasons, but this is a small space. In truth, I'm not too upset about her resignation...mostly because I'm not convinced she was a great jurist.
Oh, don't get me wrong, she's been good to me lately. I'm a big fan of her harsh dissent in the recent Kelo v. New London, while the Court's liberal wing allowed big business to steamroll whomever they'd like so long as the town council says it's OK. Plus, I think she and Justice Stevens got it right in their opinion for McConnell v. FEC...though I thought some of her other 1st amendment rulings were quite nutty (particularly her dissents in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman, both on flag burning.)
But I wonder if the former State Senator realized she had a lifetime appointment, given that her judicial opinions smacked of someone running for reelection. Whichever way the wind blew...and whichever ruling was least controversial...there was Sandra Day O'Connor, ready and willing to go with the flow.
Some would call this the definition of jurisprudence, but I call it inconsistent:
In this era when we have plenty of politicians changing their mind whenever they feel like it, we have to rely on the Courts and their Justices to review the law, review the Constitution, and provide a slice of sanity, continuity, and consistency. So, Sandra, thanks for your service...but don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And as her replacement is considered, let's look past the politicians and the party loyalists. Leave Alberto Gonzales at Justice to do...whatever it is he does. Leave John G. Roberts in the D.C. Circuit to be a party hack. Give me another Antonin Scalia or, hell, even a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Give me an Emilio Garza or a J. Harvie Wilkinson. Give me a judge.
Well, yes...for lots of reasons, but this is a small space. In truth, I'm not too upset about her resignation...mostly because I'm not convinced she was a great jurist.
Oh, don't get me wrong, she's been good to me lately. I'm a big fan of her harsh dissent in the recent Kelo v. New London, while the Court's liberal wing allowed big business to steamroll whomever they'd like so long as the town council says it's OK. Plus, I think she and Justice Stevens got it right in their opinion for McConnell v. FEC...though I thought some of her other 1st amendment rulings were quite nutty (particularly her dissents in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman, both on flag burning.)
But I wonder if the former State Senator realized she had a lifetime appointment, given that her judicial opinions smacked of someone running for reelection. Whichever way the wind blew...and whichever ruling was least controversial...there was Sandra Day O'Connor, ready and willing to go with the flow.
Some would call this the definition of jurisprudence, but I call it inconsistent:
- In the late 1980s, she talked a good game of how she was unsure of the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. When Planned Parenthood v. Casey offered the Court a chance to reconsider Roe's findings in 1992, however, she balked and devised what can only be described as a political compromise. "It's unconstitutional! Wait, maybe it's OK!"
- Same thing with affirmative action: she offered only watered-down support in the high profile Gratz and Grutter cases from the University of Michigan, while stridently supporting such "equal" rights programs in more low-key cases. "They are constitutional! Wait, maybe they aren't!"
- Same thing with religion in education: with one hand she'd say that moments of silence were OK as long as you didn't talk about prayer, but with the other she'd say that public universities could not withhold funding from religious organizations. Seeing a trend? "It's unconstitutional...except when I say it isn't!"
In this era when we have plenty of politicians changing their mind whenever they feel like it, we have to rely on the Courts and their Justices to review the law, review the Constitution, and provide a slice of sanity, continuity, and consistency. So, Sandra, thanks for your service...but don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And as her replacement is considered, let's look past the politicians and the party loyalists. Leave Alberto Gonzales at Justice to do...whatever it is he does. Leave John G. Roberts in the D.C. Circuit to be a party hack. Give me another Antonin Scalia or, hell, even a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Give me an Emilio Garza or a J. Harvie Wilkinson. Give me a judge.
