Remembering Justice O’Connor (but not fondly)

Since her death was announced last Friday, your favorite legal commentators have been gushing about the legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor. Dahlia Lithwick opened the most recent episode of her excellent podcast <a href="https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2023/12/sandra-day-oconnor-and-the-burden-of-being-first" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Amicus</a> by claiming “had there never been an O’Connor, there would never have been a [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg.” Lithwick’s guest, a former O’Connor clerk, said she “modeled what it means to be a good person.” <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1216647134/former-clerk-remembers-justice-sandra-day-oconnors-legacy" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">NPR</a> featured another former clerk who talked about how “warm and engaging” O’Connor was. The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/02/sandra-day-oconnor-supreme-court/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> praised her for an approach to the law that was “more infused with common sense than driven by ideology.” But I am not among your favorite legal commentators, and, as you’ve probably guessed from the title, I am not here to lionize Justice O’Connor. Instead I’ll argue that O’Connor represents everything wrong with America’s legal institutions. This is so even if we give her the benefit of every doubt; e.g., that her appointment wasn’t a cynical ploy by Reagan’s GOP, and that she was a trailblazer for women lawyers everywhere, and that she saved Roe v. Wade (for a while), and that her opinion in Bush v. Gore was the result of careful deliberation rather than a naked abuse of power. <a href="https://medium.com/i-taught-the-law/remembering-justice-oconnor-but-not-fondly-2e6051e29fce">Click Here</a>