Virtue Magazine

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, O’Connor was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Now 75 years old, her retirement creates the first vacancy at the court in eleven years.

Despite being appointed by a fairly conservative Republican, O’Connor was a huge disappointment to those hoping for a return to sane court decisions. Although the media and other liberals describe her as a “moderate conservative” to this very day, O’Connor proved to be decidedly liberal, with very little respect for the Constitution. While she was sometimes unpredictable and could pleasantly surprise conservatives (most recently, dissenting in a 5-4 ruling in which the Supreme Court essentially gave city governments the ability to take private property at will), she was a failure when it came to many critical issues.

Perhaps the most obvious example was O’Connor’s unrelenting support of “abortion rights.” In 1989, she refused to join four other justices who were ready to overturn the 1973 abomination that was Roe v. Wade (the ruling that declared that women have a constitutional right to abortion). In 1992, she was part of a five-justice majority that, according to the Associated Press, “reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling.” As recently as 2000, O’Connor was the decisive vote in a 5-4 ruling that struck down a Nebraska law that would have banned only partial birth abortions.

O’Connor also supports affirmative action, and wrote the majority opinion in the court’s 2003 decision to uphold the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program at the university’s law school. O’Connor wrote that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

Like fellow justice Anthony Kennedy, O’Connor showed a penchant for referring to international laws and opinion (at the expense of our own Constitution) when deciding cases and writing decisions.

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that O’ Connor’s “split-the-difference, compromising jurisprudence may have been designed to promote social peace, but if so it backfired . . . When the Court sets itself up as a micromanager of policy decisions and provides no clear guidance as to what passes ‘constitutional’ muster and what doesn’t, the stakes in any confirmation get higher . . . her career on the Court . . . made the Right suspicious of nominees whose loyalty to conservative principles had not been explicitly demonstrated. Conservatives learned that nominees often drifted left, and almost never drifted right, and adjusted their demands accordingly. It may not be the legacy she wanted, but it’s the one she’s left.”

The extant of O’Connor’s thinking and voting has been revealed by the left-wing groups who have showered her with praise since the announcement of her retirement. Senator Edward Kennedy called O’Connor “a wise judge who served the nation and the Constitution well,” and stated that “she was a mainstream conservative [who] was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.”

Howard Dean also praised O’Connor, saying in a prepared statement that “all Americans today are united in expressing our gratitude to Justice O’Connor for her service to our country. President Bush should choose to continue that unity.”

Interestingly enough, Dean remarked that Bush “should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O’Connor . . . Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right-wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist.”

With the future of the Supreme Court in question (as well as the future of our country, unfortunately), members of various political ideologies have been busy sharpening their swords. Senator Kennedy has already threatened to oppose any replacement by President Bush “if the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people” (read: is pro-life). Liberal, pro-abortion groups like NOW, NARAL and Move.on org have already mobilized, and are busy launching campaigns directed against the possibility of Bush nominating a semi-conservative judge.

“The battle for the Supreme Court has begun,” states a NARAL ad featuring a picture of Bush. “Don’t let his choice end yours.”

Unfortunately for conservatives (and despite the hysterics of left-wingers), there is a very real chance that whoever Bush nominates will not be much of an improvement over O’Connor. Some of the names being mentioned as replacements include Samuel A. Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Hollan Jones, Edith Brown Clement and Theodore B. Olson. However, most speculation so far has centered around Alberto Gonzales, the man whom Bush just recently appointed as Attorney General.

The controversy surrounding Gonzales and his effort to find a legal basis for the use of torture in interrogations should be the least of conservatives’ worries. Gonzales is the man, after all, who sided with the majority of the Texas Supreme Court in granting a “judicial bypass” allowing a 17-year-old girl to obtain an abortion without parental consent. He shaped the Bush administration’s affirmative action stance in the 2003 Grutter and Gratz cases, “arguing that public universities may use racial quotas to guarantee diversity.” He also referred to illegal immigrants as “undocumented aliens but otherwise lawful citizens” at a confirmation hearing (The American Conservative, July 18, 2005, p. 18).

Despite Gonzales’ record, Bush “likes, trusts, and respects” the man, as a recent National Review editorial so eloquently stated. The fact that Gonzales is Hispanic is also a huge plus for a Republican administration intent on appealing to minorities no matter what the cost.

In the event that Bush will not nominate Gonzales as rumored, it is not unlikely that another woman will be nominated to the court. Reagan’s nomination of O’Connor in 1981 was undoubtedly inspired at least in part by a desire to overcome a “gender-gap,” and Bush may see this as another opportunity to do the same. Moreover, several Democrats have already expressed a desire for there to be a minimum of two female justices on the court at all times.

Whatever the case may be, one thing is clear: we are entering into what could be one of the most important political battles in our nation’s history. The battle will likely be a bloody one, perhaps even worse than the 2000 presidential election dispute in Florida. The more conservative the choice, the bloodier the battle.

With this battle, President Bush and the Republican Party have an opportunity to make up for the costly mistakes of the last four Republican presidents.

The question is, will they do so?

If they fail to do so, not only will Bush and the Republican Party be without excuse; but so will those conservatives who continue to support Bush and the Republican Party.