SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

REPLACING REASON ON THE COURT

In July 1981, Ronald Reagan, obligated to keep his campaign promise to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, named Sandra Day O'Connor to replace the retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart, and she became the first woman in 191 years to serve on the Supreme Court.

Although her nomination initially drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats as both questioned her views on the same issue, abortion, Day O'Connor was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. The long tradition of addressing the Court with "Mr. Justice" would now be simply, "Justice".

During Day O'Connor's 24 years on the Court, she has been the deciding vote in many 5-4 decisions and is frequently the justice to whom oral and written arguments are directed because she is so frequently the deciding vote. And over the years she has continued to be criticized, and praised by both sides of the spectrum.

In 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services she was the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision that allowed states to restrict access to abortion. But then in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey she wrote the decision in a 5-4 win that upheld Roe V. Wade, refusing to go so far as to overturn a woman's right to choose.

She voted to end certain governmental affirmative action hiring programs and yet she was the deciding vote once again in upholding affirmative action in the case involving University of Michigan's Law School in 2003.

She voted with the 6-3 majority in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned the prohibition of homosexual sodomy after voting to uphold Georgia's right to prohibit sodomy 15 years earlier.

Just last week she voted 'for the 10 Commandments (Texas) before she voted against them' (Kentucky). Both of those decisions were 5-4.

And of course, Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority in its 5-4 ruling on December 11, 2000, in Gore v. Bush.

Most thought Chief Justice William Rehnquist would be the first justice Bush would need to replace but as it turns out, that will not be the case. Rehnquist's spot as Chief Justice has been known to be a 'given' to be replaced with a Scalia or Thomas type of conservative but Sandra Day O'Connor's spot has not.

Democrats with the help of the few moderate Republicans there are in the Senate need to fight like hell to ensure O'Connor's replacement is one who respects the precedent of earlier Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality.

Democrats and Republicans both praise and criticize Sandra Day O'Connor, which probably means she did a good job. You just don't realize how good of a job it was until you think about the type of person Bush may try to replace her with. After all, having four Scalia/Thomas types on the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow to liberty.