U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who died at age 93 last week, was a classic Southwesterner, an Arizonan who epitomized that region’s reputation for independence and self-reliance. Her rulings reflected a moderately conservative but pragmatic approach, but we’ll always remember her as a champion of the individual over the state.
Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and approved on a 99-0 Senate vote, she served as the first woman on the court — fulfilling Reagan’s campaign promise to break that legal glass ceiling. Unusual for a justice, she previously had a stellar career in state politics, where she served as Arizona’s Senate majority leader.
As The New York Times’ obituary noted, her approach on the court took lessons from her legislative career, where she was known for “breaking down partisan boundaries and encouraging compromise.” Compromise doesn’t always yield the best result, but it did promote social peace as the court decided highly contentious issues. The court could use more of her wisdom today.
Her Western background also gave her a healthy respect for federalism and protecting individuals from the intrusions of the far-off federal government. In 1992’s New York v. United States, O’Connor penned a majority opinion opposed to federal “commandeering” of states. This same commitment to federalism is what motivated her dissent in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case in which the majority ruled Congress could criminalize homegrown marijuana even in states that legalized it.
“This overreaching stifles an express choice by some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently,” she wrote, continuing, “whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.”
We disagreed with a number of her opinions during her 24-year court career, including her ruling in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger allowing a narrowly tailored use of racial quotas in university admissions.
But we also appreciated her consistent support for property rights.
Her dissent in the 2005 Kelo v. New London case is striking for its eloquence. In that case, the majority approved that Connecticut city’s use of eminent domain to clear away a neighborhood on behalf of a corporation that was planning a major redevelopment project.
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” she wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process … As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.”
O’Connor was a great American. Rest in peace.
