The Impending Retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor

That first Monday in October 1980 when Ms. O'Connor was about to put on the robe of a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice for the first time - and the first time a woman had worn it at all - was a day I actually remember.

I was concerned that Ms. O'Connor might be as partisan as some of the men who had come before her (later, I was less worried about the second woman, Bader Ginsburg). As I've mentioned, I've always felt a strange associate with the court simply because one of my ancestors presided, as Chief Justice, over the Court and was part of the first presidential impeachment (Johnson, not Lyndon). While I don't always pay great attention to the Supremes, I do often find myself reading the opinions they tender and looking back at how certain issues have come before the court again and again, while the court's response to these issues have often changed.

But O'Connor, whose politics certainly differ from mine, has often been one of the most thoughtful and overall careful of the current crop of justices. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist seem never able to separate their politics from their vote, but occasionally O'Connor and Kennedy can. You can't always depend on O'Connor for consistency.

Yet, overall, O'Connor has served this court and this country well. I've heard it said that she wants the Chief Justice spot and would stay if she could have it. But Bush has let it be known that the job is his to give, and he'd rather see Scalia or Thomas there. Both were unfortunate choices for the Supreme Court anyway, and both would be worse Chief Justices than Rehnquist. If Bush were smart, he would reconsider but he's not and he won't. O'Connor wasn't partisan enough for him, and not loyal enough to his cause. The same people who would like to see O'Connor punished into retirement are the same people still mad that Bill Clinton won in '92 keeping Ken Starr (the $40-80 million dollars to investigate a blowjob "special persecutor") could sit on the bench. Starr should have recused himself from the start, but he was not good enough to do so.

Ideally, of course, loyalty and party should not matter on the Supreme Court. But this group has been far more partisan than most. Thomas, for example, represents blacks no more than Scalia represents most Catholics or O'Connor or Ginsburg represent most women. Kennedy and O'Connor, like a couple of the Dem appointments, have taken their vows and responsibilities on the court far more seriously while Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia sit on the court to feather their own nests and sit in judgment over the rest of the land.

I mention this because the New York PooPost - via gossip meanie Cindy Adams - reports that O'Connor is on the eve of her retirement. It's been widely rumored she would leave if she could not be appointed as Chief and it's now clear that the word has gone down that Bush will appoint Scalia or Thomas (some say Thomas is ahead - much to Scalia's dismay - because Bush likes the idea of pointing to his own "wonderfulness" in naming a black to the post). Sadly, Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall.