Sandra Day O’Connor: the brave golden mean of the Supreme Court
“A daughter of the American Southwest, Sandra Day O’Connor blazed an historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice. She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in response to her death in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 1st.
In 2018, at the age of 88, O’connor released a public letter stating that she was diagnosed with the early stages of dementia, likely related to Alzheimer’s disease. She passed due to a combination of this dementia and a respiratory illness.
Born in 1930, O’Connor grew up on a ranch in Phoenix. She attended Stanford University, as well as Stanford Law, where she graduated in 1952. She began her career as the San Mateo county attorney in California, then became a civilian attorney for Army Quartermaster Corps. In 1969, she was selected to fill an absence in the Arizona State Senate, eventually becoming the first woman majority leader in that state senate.
She worked her way up to Maricopa County Superior Court, then to the Arizona Court of Appeals until 1979. After catching the eye of President Ronald Reagan, who had promised the country a female Supreme Court Justice, she was nominated to the Supreme Court and was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate, a rare sight to see.
O’Connor served on the Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006. Her biggest accomplishment among the masses of American citizens is naturally that she was the first woman to sit on the bench of the highest court in the nation. Her persistence throughout her career - from law school to her nomination to the high court - acted as a hope for the proliferation of gender-based change in government.
Aside from taking massive strides in gender representation, O’Connor served as a key player in Supreme Court decisions during her time on the bench - so much so that many claim that she created a distinct “era” of compromise for the high court.
Perhaps the most notable example was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). Seeing that the Planned Parenthood challenged new abortion restrictions that were placed in the state of Pennsylvania, the question about the validity of the provisions of the 1972 abortion case Roe v. Wade were raised. The case held that abortion restrictions were contingent on the trimester of the pregnancy, a standard that O’Connor was not content with.
She dominated as a co-author of the majority opinion for this case by creating a new standard for abortion provisions, one that relied on fetal viability (the point where the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb).
This decision effectively preserved the right to abortion, while revising the provisions in order to better fit the interpretation of the Constitution, but O’Connor’s dominance had another effect. The creation of this standard swayed conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to the side of the three liberal justices, effectively creating this harmony on the bench. The ideological balance in the high court is a trait we can only wish to see in today’s Supreme Court.
Another crucial example was with yet another “hot-button issue”: affirmative action. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a case that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy for admission, Justice O’Connor was the swing vote. She voted with the left perspective of preserving the affirmative action policy, but it was not as black and white as that.
O’Connor proposed a specific time limit on the policy of around 25 years, showing that she recognized how crucial (both Constitutionally-based and socially) affirmative action was to introducing and maintaining equity in higher education, but that she also realized that there needed to be a middle ground in connection with the opposing viewpoint. The time limit was clearly well-researched; she hypothesized that it would allow the goal of affirmative action to be reached while also depolarizing the situation.
Although affirmative action has now been outlawed as of June 2023 earlier than this case held, and although the current admissions process leaves many indicators that equity-measures are going to be required for the future, the idea of O’Connor serving as this middle-ground still stands.
By being the spokesperson for these landmark cases, it was apparent that O’Connor had a gift of being able to connect liberals and conservatives, making for a more productive and well-rounded court. Most would assume that the “golden mean” Justice would take a passive role, but that is quite opposite of the reality. O’Connor was able to serve as this bridge because of her active role in each and every case, as well as her commanding presence over the court.
Going back to the fact that she was the very first woman on the high court, she did not let that silence her into passivity. She had a very clear ideology and goal, something that we would not be able to sit here today and see had she not acted on it.
Sandra Day O’Connor continues to be a fierce and poised role model for women in each and every field, teaching them the lesson that groundbreaking bravery is the key to success. Not only this, but she should be a role model for each and every politician and Justice, teaching the lesson that the art of listening and compromise can be the key to progress. To the Supreme Court Justices and members of Congress, take notes.
Written by Saniya Bhagwat
