In a New York Times interview with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Arizona native promotes her website aimed at middle-schoolers and their teachers.
Conservatives had reason to hope the 1981 Reagan appointee would be a social conservative, but like so many justices, she veered left, disappointing many as she reveled in her role as the “swing vote.”
In his review, Get ‘Em While They’re Young, National Review Online’s Matthew Franck concludes “…Justice O’Connor has a decidedly partial understanding of our founding history. Not surprisingly, she has a view of our constitutional principles that conduces to the power of the institution in which she spent most of her career. The nation’s children deserve a better teacher.”
Quite an indictment, but not without justification. O’Connor’s single vote ensured the survival of Roe v. Wade, but the 50 + million babies for whom that vote spelled disaster were not so fortunate.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) enthusiastically devotes a page to the O’Connor Legacy.
And in 1998 the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities heaped praise on the 1973 decision during the then-25-year anniversary of the decision.
The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the mysterious Constitutional right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a statement issued on his second full day in office, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to abortion on the regrettable 36th anniversary, saying “it stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. No matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.”
Last year, Republican President George W. Bush told March for Life participants that he was “proud to be standing with” them.
O’Connor refused to respond to the question posed by the NYT interviewer, asking whom she supported for President of the United States in the last election.
Wanna hazard a guess?
Seeing Red AZ 
Obama should be right up her ally! Since she’s no longer on the court, there’s no reason for being so coy and cagey. Especially since she was at one time an elected Republican state legislator and appointed to the court by Reagan.
Her vote on Roe was a great disappointment.
Sandra O’Connor should have stayed on the ranch. All of the acclaim surrounding her is foolish — and only because she was the first female Supreme Court Justice, certainly not because she was meritorious. Why this woman ever identified as a Republican is beyond me.
“O’Connor’s single vote ensured the survival of Roe v. Wade,…”
I learn something new every day on Seeing Red AZ.
The most telling line in Matthew Franck’s piece in National Review regarding O’Connor’s project aimed at youth, was this: “Her pet project for indoctrinating the youth of America in the putative virtues of judicial supremacy…”
The word ‘indoctrinating’ enlightens and tells the whole story about her project.
Those missing words would have added a lot of substance to this post. O’Connor is a globalist in her view of the law and an unrepentant liberal. And yes, I have little doubt she supported Obama.
Right on, Villanova!! O’Connor was in concert with the left end of the court more often than not and that swing vote posture she cultivated was no tribute to President Reagan, who mistakenly placed a lot of faith in her.
O’Connor’s single vote also ensured the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, who destroyed America’s prosperity, its image in the world, and many middle-class families. She was a good justice — that is why ASU named its law school for her, and most of us honor her — but her partisan vote on Bush v. Gore is the biggest shame on her long record.
I understand you in the hate-America crowd also hate Justice O’Connor, and you’re entitled to your anti-American views.