This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thistle whistle (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 9 June 2004 (I understand the argument that this case gave a lot of power to the Supreme Court, but the ruling itself contradicts the suggestion. I also removed language the confounded Misplaced Pages's mission.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:40, 9 June 2004 by Thistle whistle (talk | contribs) (I understand the argument that this case gave a lot of power to the Supreme Court, but the ruling itself contradicts the suggestion. I also removed language the confounded Misplaced Pages's mission.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Sandra Day O'Connor (born March 26, 1930) has been a Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States since 1981. She is the first woman to serve on the Court. With moderate political views, she has in recent years been seen as the "swing vote" of the court.
Her life and history
O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. She married John Jay O'Connor III in 1952 and has three sons Scott, Brian, and Jay. She received her B.A. and LL.B. from Stanford University. She served as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952-1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany from 1954-1957. From 1958-1960, she practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona, and served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965-1969. She was appointed to the Arizona State Senate in 1969 and was subsequently reelected to two two-year terms. In 1975 she was elected Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.
Law in the center of politics
The first woman appointed to Supreme Court, O’Connor has become on one the most watched justices on the Court. Dedicated to the “federalism revolution,” she is rigid in her practice of approaching each case she hears as narrowly as is possible, making sure to keep away from generalizations which might later paint her into a corner when hearing other cases. It is both O’Connor’s dedication to asserting her judicial power over that of other federal instruments and her pragmatic circumspection that has given her a putative hold over the deciding centrist vote for the preponderance of the Rehnquist Court’s cases and, consequently, extremely influential decisions governing the country.
On December 12, 2000, O’Connor joined with four other justices to decide a case in which decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush (Bush v. Gore). Never before had such a maneuver been made by a U.S. court. Some suggest that it transferred a large amount of authority to the Supreme Court. Critics of this point of view point out that the Court specifically restricted the precedent-setting ability of their decision with the following: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." She has played an important role in other notable cases, including Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Lawrence v. Texas. Some suggest that, in making her decisions, O’Connor not only considers the merits of the case and her personal viewpoints, but also seems to focus to much on the prevailing politics of the day. Others would counter that she holds very nuanced views. Nonetheless, she is frequently the justice to whom many arguments are directed because she is so frequently the deciding vote in important cases.