Sandra Day O’Connor, the Arizona ranch girl who became one of the most powerful women in America as the nation’s first female Supreme Court justice, announced her retirement Friday after 24 years on the bench.
Her decision to step down set off a partisan battle that is certain to be waged over many of the contentious issues–race, religion and abortion among them–that she helped settle on the court.
In a startling announcement kept secret even from her children, O’Connor informed President Bush by letter that she would step down after her successor was confirmed. The retirement allows Bush to name his first justice to the Supreme Court, although not, as had been widely expected, as a replacement for the ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Because of her role as a swing vote on a closely divided court, the retirement of O’Connor, 75, gives the president an opportunity to dramatically alter the court’s balance. The White House said a successor would not be named until at least July 8, after Bush returns from an economic summit in Europe.
O’Connor’s retirement is the first in 11 years on the high court–the longest period the nine-member panel has gone without a vacancy–and those on both sides began preparing Friday for a bitter ideological battle over her replacement. Senate Republicans said they hoped to have O’Connor’s successor in place for the court’s new term in October, but they braced for arduous confirmation hearings in August or September.
Her announcement upends a list of candidates who have been under consideration to replace Rehnquist, should he retire, and it places pressure on the White House to either nominate or strongly consider a woman.
Because O’Connor’s replacement could transform the law in such critical areas as race, religion and abortion, the fight gained an even greater sense of urgency than, perhaps, if Rehnquist had stepped down. Her announcement caught the White House, Congress and an army of interest groups off-guard and set the stage for a new kind of Supreme Court confirmation battle, including a multimillion-dollar campaign with the intensity of a tough national political race.
“It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms,” O’Connor wrote in her one-paragraph letter to the president. “I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”
While she once called her own confirmation “a miserable process,” O’Connor received more than 60,000 letters of support during her first year. More than a role model, O’Connor set new heights for how women were viewed and what they could achieve.
Less than an hour after the announcement, Bush paid tribute to O’Connor in the Rose Garden, calling her “a discerning and conscientious judge and public servant of complete integrity.” He said he would nominate a justice who would “faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country” and demanded that his choice be given “fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote.”
Few secrets are as closely held as the retirements of Supreme Court justices. The White House was notified Thursday to expect news of a retirement from the Supreme Court, but it did not learn until Friday morning that it was O’Connor who was stepping down.
Court marshals delivered a sealed manila envelope containing her letter at 10:15 a.m. Moments later, Bush called her in what a spokesman described as an “emotional” conversation on her end.
“You’re one of the great Americans,” Bush told O’Connor. “I wish I was there to hug you.”
Snubbed at start of career
O’Connor’s role as a trailblazing jurist was not seamless. Though she finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, where classmate Rehnquist finished first, she couldn’t get work as a lawyer because of her sex. After moving to Arizona, she went on to serve in the state Legislature before a term as an intermediate-level state court judge.
It was from that relatively obscure perch that she was tapped by President Ronald Reagan to make history.
When Reagan nominated her in 1981 and fulfilled a campaign promise to put a woman on the court, O’Connor said she felt additional pressure.
“I’ve always said it’s fine to be the first, but you don’t want to be the last,” she told the Tribune in a 2003 interview. “I was acutely aware of the negative consequences if I arrived here and did a poor job. It made me hesitant to say yes when the president called.”
Indeed, she remained the court’s only female justice until President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. “I hope there will always be women — plural — on this court,” O’Connor said.
The White House said the president has yet to personally review files of possible replacements. But a senior administration official said a new short list almost certainly would include women and Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic justice.
Judges who could emerge as potential successors to O’Connor include three from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Edith Brown Clement, Edith Jones and Priscilla Owen. Other possible contenders include Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and Janice Rogers Brown, a recent controversial appeals court appointee to the District of Columbia Circuit.
“I think that it is very important for there to be gender balance on the court,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who will oversee the confirmation hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senators said the confirmation battle, though, almost certainly would focus on ideology more than gender.
“Justice O’Connor is a sterling example of what can happen when a president nominates a justice not from the right or the left wing of one of the political parties, but an independent judge capable of making up her own mind,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans and Democrats sought Friday to shape the politics of a nomination. Democrats insisted that Americans want a nominee who would convey unity, not divisiveness, and Republicans called for fairness, civility and dignity in the confirmation process.
But they were united on one point: O’Connor caught them by surprise.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that a couple months ago two senators, one Republican and one Democrat, agreed to a plan to push O’Connor for chief justice should Rehnquist retire.
“One of the senators called her and said, `I won’t do this if you don’t think I should.’ She said, `Go ahead,”‘ recounted Durbin, who declined to name his colleagues.
Husband has Alzheimer’s
In her retirement letter, O’Connor, who also is a breast cancer survivor, gave few clues as to what prompted her decision. Her husband, John O’Connor III, has Alzheimer’s disease, and the couple recently sold their home outside Washington to move into a condominium in the city.
After her telephone conversation with the president Friday morning, O’Connor left Washington for a vacation in Wisconsin without further comment.
Tributes poured in from all quarters of official Washington, including the court.
“As the first woman to be appointed to this court, Sandra Day O’Connor was thrust into the spotlight as no new justice has ever been. And she has become a star,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “The statistics show that during her tenure she shaped the jurisprudence of this court more than any other associate justice.”
In a spare 14 word-statement, Rehnquist said: “She is a longtime friend and a valued colleague. I shall miss her greatly.”
In her tenure, O’Connor became, in the eyes of many, the court’s most powerful justice. She provided a key vote on cases in areas of race, religion, abortion and states’ rights, as well in Bush vs. Gore, the controversial decision that stopped vote recounts in Florida and handed the presidency to Bush.
At other times, she tempered the positions of her more conservative colleagues. But she was not predictable; two years ago she joined more liberal justices in the landmark case that upheld the use of affirmative action in college admissions.
In her early years on the court, O’Connor was a no-nonsense conservative, especially on law enforcement and other criminal law issues. Even on abortion, her early opinions suggested a strong conservative streak that her later decisions would belie.
In the mid-1980s, as other Republican appointees joined the court, O’Connor found herself more in the center.
Her jurisprudence began to be seen as more ad hoc, with each issue to be examined and considered on individual merits. In key controversial cases, including the affirmative action cases and a challenge to a provision in the federal Violence Against Women Act, lawyers often crafted their arguments with her in mind, believing that if they could win her vote, they could win the case.
In her opinions and at oral arguments, O’Connor showed a particular solicitude for the rights of women and children. But it is in the area of abortion that her position is considered most crucial–and for that reason, the confirmation of her successor is certain to be controversial.
Key role in abortion cases
O’Connor refused to go along with three of the court’s current justices who have said the court should overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that said women had a constitutional right to an abortion. In 1992 she joined Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to reaffirm Roe and strike down state regulations on abortion that placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to undergo the procedure.
“I was asked in my Senate confirmation hearing about how I’d like to be remembered. I called it the tombstone question,” O’Connor once said in an interview. “And I said I hope the tombstone might read, `Here lies a good judge.'”
– – –
Sandra Day O’Connor
EARLY YEARS
1930: Sandra Day is born in El Paso, Texas, on March 26. She then moves to a ranch in Arizona but later returns to El Paso to attend a girls academy.
1950: She graduates from Stanford University with a BA.
1952: She earns her law degree from Stanford in two years, one short of the customary three-year period.
1953: Her husband , John O’Connor, is transferred by the Army to Germany. She goes with him, works as a civilian attorney for three years, then returns to U.S.
1969: O’Connor is appointed Arizona state senator, a post she was re-elected to for two subsequent terms.
1979: Gov. Bruce Babbitt appoints O’Connor to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
THE SUPREME COURT’S FIRST FEMALE JUSTICE
July 7, 1981: President Ronald Reagan nominates O’Connor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart. The nomination was viewed by many as Reagan fulfilling a campaign promise to nominate a woman to the high court.
Sept. 22, 1981: O`Connor is unanimously confirmed by the Senate and three days later takes the oath of office.
1988: O`Connor is diagnosed with breast cancer. Ten days after surgery, she resumes work without missing a single oral argument.
1992: In the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, O’Connor writes a landmark decision reaffirming Roe vs. Wade.
2000: O’Connor joins the majority in Bush vs. Gore, a decision that would lead to Bush’s winning the presidency.
Sources: Tribune and news service reports, Legal Information Institute and the Supreme Court Historical Society
Chicago Tribune
———-
jgreenburg@tribune.com
jzeleny@tribune.com
