(Sandra Day) O'Connor not confined by conservatism

[CShine]

She is an enduring part of Ronald Reagan's legacy, the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. But for years, Sandra Day O'Connor has confounded many of the conservatives for whom the late president is an icon. On a divided, nine-member court, O'Connor is a conservative with an asterisk: a pragmatic jurist who, when she sees fit, will vote with the four liberal justices. Particularly galling to some conservative Republicans has been O'Connor's retreat from initial stands against abortion rights and some affirmative action policies. Lately, the 23-year veteran of the high court has been giving such critics more reasons to gripe. Although O'Connor usually votes with the court's conservative wing, she increasingly has sided with the liberals in significant cases that have been decided by 5-4 votes. It's led some conservative observers of the court to wonder whether O'Connor, at 74, is turning more to the left.

In May, she broke with her conservative brethren to cast a decisive vote to let disabled people sue states for access to courthouses. Earlier this term, she joined the court's liberals - John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - to preserve key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance limits, which ban unlimited donations from corporations and unions to national political parties. She also joined the liberals in 5-4 rulings that enhanced the U.S. government's power to enforce the Clean Air Act on states, and that allowed taxpayers to sue states to challenge tax credits that benefit religious schools. That all followed a landmark ruling last summer, when O'Connor's opinion upheld the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

Many legal analysts see such votes by O'Connor as signs of her tendency to view each case along narrow legal lines. But some conservatives say she seems to be enticed more by the left, and that unlike Souter - an appointee of the first President Bush who has become a consistent vote for the liberal wing - they never know when O'Connor will be with them or against them. With several major rulings due in the next week as the high court wraps up this term - including key tests of the Bush administration's legal strategies in dealing with suspected terrorists - O'Connor is being viewed warily by some supporters of the administration.

"Reagan would be disappointed in her recent rulings," says Charles Cooper, a Washington lawyer who was an assistant U.S. attorney general under Reagan. "It is difficult to reconcile some of her recent cases and things she said in the past."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&ncid=703&e=5&u=/usatoday/20040624/pl_usatoday/oconnornotconfinedbyconservatism

[qazplm]

1. I have always thought

that she was one of the Justices LEAST constrained by ideaology on both sides of the aisle.

I still wish she were a little more to the left, but I can live with judges like her and souter being appointed by Republican presidents.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. I didn't like a lot of her opinions...

but, yeah, she's one of the more honest judges on the court. And, she has grown over the years, unlike some others. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that Souter's scholarly and pretty well nitpicking work balancing Scalia's has influenced her.

It is galling that the wingnuts are pissed that she's not rightwing enough. Can't they be satisfied with the half loaf they have?

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. if you can't tell which way a judge will vote beforehand

it probably means they're a good judge.

[Fenris]

3. Indeed. Judges should not be confined by political ideologies.

Left or right.

[wakfs]

4. Totally agree

bump

[onehandle]

6. Like many Republicans, she is not conservative.

She's a corporate whore.

Most Republicans (politicians, lobbyists, judges, advisors) don't give a sh*t about conservative issues. They're just in it for the money. They use conservatives.

[shoelace414]

7. I like O'Conner

She seems to take into consideration the situtation right now and rules from that standpoint.

If a law is being used to opress, but it used to be used for good, it seems like she will change her vote. She rules agasinst what I think but I usually respect her opinion.

[dbt]

8. Sandra Day O'Connor is an accessory to rape, pure and simple.

Whatever merits she may have had went right out the window when she voted to install bu$h as president. The only ink she's worthy of would appear on an arrest warrant. She sold this country OUT in December of 2000 and deserves only impeachment and imprisonment.

:grr:
dbt

[bemildred]

11. Mega-dittos there, dbt.

She needs to be impeached along with the rest of the felonious five.

[cybildisobedience]

9. Don't be fooled by this

I read somewhere that, immediately after the incendiary Bush v. Gore decision, she was horrified by the reaction of the general public, and that she hired a publicist to clean up her image. Almost immediately, you started seeing articles about how really moderate and measured she was. This just looks like another one of those placements.
You made your bed, bitch -- now lie in it.

[mazzarro]

10. People are easily taken in by these type of "planted" articles while

conveniently forgetting that she played "politics" along with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas in Bush V Gore debacle. Yes she does a better job of hiding her partisanship but she, nonetheless, is fully guided by ideology - IMHO.

[bagnana]

12. I lost any respect for her after Bush v. Gore

It was a horrible opinion. She should have been horrified by the public's image -- she sold any shred of principles and intellectual honesty to install a republican president in the White House. Disgusting

[fujiyama]

13. She has proved

to be somewhat of a swing vote on issues like affirmative action, capital punishment, and abortion, as well as others.

Unfortunately, she apparently did make that outburst on election night of '00, where she said something like "oh that's terrible", when it seemed like Bush was going to lose and of course she was part of thet majority in the decision.

She certainly is a republican, but not quite the usual fundy far right type (she's not quite Scalia or Thomas).

If she steps down during Bush's presidency, it will definetely be a problem...and there's a very strong probability that Bush will appoint someone much farther to the right of her -- someone closer to Scaliam Thomas, or Rehnquist.

[daleo]

14. The Gore/Bush decision

I recall she was supposed to have said she wouldn't retire unless a Republican was in power, before the 2000 decision. Although the fact she hasn't retired yet may negate that allegation - if she really wanted to be sure a conservative judge (Republican friendly) was appointed to replace her, I guess she has left it too late now. Unless of course she expected a repeat performance of the SC 2000 decision would be needed in 2004, so she stayed on for that eventuality.