[I am with TPM on this issue. In the end, since they helped make it of no value, they voted against cloture. Darn courageous! Thanks as well to the Loser 19 who handed President Bush a big fat kiss, ending cloture, opening the way for the final vote on Judge/Justice Alito on the morning of the SOTU. RSVP Ms. Alito! No crying. Note that right after cloture, some Republican asshole railed against the partisan/divisive tactics of Sen. Reid and company.]
Since Justice O'Connor will be stepping down momentarily, it might be useful to say some more about Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice by Joan Biskupic. It was a generally straightforward medium length bio that provides some interesting insights and background information on the woman and justice involved.
The author interviewed eight of the nine justices (this is before the Roberts confirmation) ... the notes reference interviews with seven, but probably the very private Souter (subject himself of a biography, perhaps a bit too soon) was the holdout. Such interviews provide an interesting insight into the justices themselves, such as comments from the like of Stevens and Thomas.
The book provides a look at Sandra Day/O'Connor's early years and ultimately provides useful insight in the complex issue of "qualifications" of nominees. Ms. Biskupic notes that confirmations of justices involve various factors, including current political dynamics, putting to bed the lame argument that it is just about the bare "qualifications" of the nominees. [The "spin" put during the nomination process also is shown here, including downplaying more controversial aspects of her background, such as support of abortion reform legislation.] Furthermore, qualifications are complex matters, not solely a reflection of judicial experience and legal knowledge.
Sandra Day O'Connor is a clear case in point. First, it is useful to remember she was an affirmative action baby. President Reagan might have chosen her personally because of her personality and background (her connection to CJ Burger did not hurt), but he promised earlier that he would pick a woman. O'Connor noted this herself when Justice Scalia railed against preferences -- "how do you think I got my job?" This helps explains her policy of being wary of racial preferences, while still supporting them in various instances.
O'Connor was an appellate judge in a small Western state ... her legal position was not really her major qualification. But, her background did supply various qualifications, perhaps a bit reflective of those of Harriet Miers. First and foremost was her experience in all three branches of state government, which clearly is reflected in her jurisprudence. Also, her political background and experiences was an important factor as well.
Actually, traditionally, big names in state politics often were seen as ideal justice material. Some argue O'Connor has been too much of a "legislator" on the bench, but real life experience in state politics and government is quite useful when deciding many cases. And, her centrist/minimalist approach (less so in some areas) is also in no way unique over the Court's history. Finally, her personal history, including being raised on a ranch, denied a job because of her sex, thriving anyway, and so on factored into her jurisprudence. It might also be noted that she also experienced small time law practice, including a few criminal cases, and being a federal bankruptcy trustee.
[The book suggests the various philosophical life choices professional women use to deal with life's difficulties. O'Connor used a more traditional approach, suggested by a statement made at an early political event in which she stated: "I come to you tonight wearing my bra and my wedding ring." She is one tough cookie with a no nonsense philosophy, but was willing to be more feminine and in various public statements noted the importance of family in her life. But, she could only do that because her husband and family were willing to support her in ways many women find impossible.]
As to abortion, O'Connor did support reform legislation in Arizona before Roe v. Wade, legislation that never passed. As with her support of the ERA, her policy was to move on from such support when it was controversial and a lost cause. Though she was a party faithful, including working for the Nixon re-election and Rehnquist nomination, she was at heart a conservative centrist. And, this was reflected in her jurisprudence as well. It suggests the point we have reached that Democrats use her as a model, but it also suggests how conservative a justice like Alito (or even Roberts ... who Justice Scalia himself notes in the book is more like himself than O'Connor) truly is.
Anyway, the complex matters involved in the abortion area is reflected in the book. For instance, when the Arizona reform bill was in the air, some ministers and rabbis made a statement: "We firmly believe in the ethical and moral rights of a woman over her body in making such deeply personal choices as whether or not she will have a child. Arizona's [anti-]abortion law abridges this right."
Likewise, consider O'Connor's own statement in her confirmation hearings: "I have indicated to you ... my own abhorrence of abortion as a remedy. It is a practice in which I would not have engaged, and I am not trying to criticize others in that process. There are many who have very different feelings on this issue. I recognize that, and I am sensitive to it. But my view is the product, I suppose, merely of my own upbringing and my religious training, my background, my sense of family values, and my sense of how I should lead my own life." And, this is why in Planned Parenthood v. Casey this deeply personal moral decision was left to the individual woman.
This also suggests the complexity of "religion" and morality overall. In her memoir of life on the Lazy B ranch, she discusses her father's religious philosophy thusly: "[W]hen you watch the world around us and see how the earth orbits the sun and how the moon orbits the earth, and see the laws of nature work, you have to believe some power beyond us has created the universe and has established the way nature works.... And we don't have to go to church to appreciate it. It is all around us. This is our church."
Maybe, a bit ironically, Al Franken refers to his own dad's religious views in a similar fashion. Likewise, leading a moral life and doing God's work to O'Connor was not just going to church or the like, but public service overall. [Biskupic notes O'Connor was further inspired by a particular professor at college with a similar philosophy.] Or, as Franken's dad might have said "to do justice."
[An influential professor was influenced by Henry Burton Sharman, a theologian who developed a philosophy of individual responsibility based on the life of Jesus, analyzing the gospels for what he deemed scientifically possible and a model for individual ethics and behavior.]
The book also provides various behind the scenes insights of her time on the Court. For instance, though some suggest Scalia played the role, O'Connor in the author's view was Justice Brennan's real competition. The epigraph of the book cites a personal note to Justice Marshall that justified a compromise opinion that was not quite what he would have liked to write because "Sandra forced my hand by threatening to lead the revolution."
In public statements, Justice O'Connor unconvincingly downplayed her importance, noting she was just one vote of nine. In fact, she was among the most passionate of the justices in defence of secrecy, including involving retired justices releasing their notes to scholars. Her style, especially in her book on The Majesty of the Law might sometimes be rather bland, but her ultimate importance in the law's development during the last quarter of the century is clear. But, as she cites Justice White saying, the truth that the change of one justice alters the Supreme Court is atypically true in her case.
The book also comments on her fight against breast cancer, which she did with her usual guts though it was one time when her usual cool was seriously threatened. O'Connor also was always busy, often by traveling overseas to promote international comity among the nations respecting the law. Thus, along with Justice Kennedy (as compared to Scalia and Alito, except in very limited areas such as interpretation of treaties), she was sympathetic to some recognition of international law and what other nations might be able to teach us.
Recently, she was asked her highlights among her opinions. As is her wont, O'Connor preferred not to choice a specific one and did not think any necessarily would have lasting significance, but did upon a bit of though cite her Hamdi plurality, which included the statement: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad." As she noted, "that may point [us in] a useful direction."
After her retirement announcement, she cited her favorite poem,* which fits her preferred image of herself:
Take a bucket, fill with water,
Put your hand in, up to your wrist
Pull it out, and the hole that's remaining
Is a measure of how you'll be missed.
The moral in this quaint example
Is do just the best that you can,
Be proud of yourself, but remember,
There is no indispensable ... (pause)
woman.
Agree with her or not, O'Connor did her father proud ... as a favorite professor counseled she went "out into the world and [did] something."
---
* "Indispensable Man" by Saxon White Kessinger. Thus, she slightly changed that last stanza.