President Ronald Reagan and his Supreme Court justice nominee Sandra Day O’Connor on July 15, 1981. / Public Domain
CNA Newsroom, Dec 1, 2023 / 17:40 pm (CNA).
Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote who became a key part of the court’s longtime abortion-supporting majority, died Friday. She was 93 and had been suffering from dementia for several years.
Born Sandra Day in El Paso, Texas, in 1930, she grew up on a ranch in eastern Arizona. She was baptized an Episcopalian and later attended Episcopal churches as an adult.
She went to Stanford and Stanford Law School at a time when few women did either. As an undergraduate, she dated future Supreme Court colleague William Rehnquist and turned down an offer of marriage from him. Instead, she married another fellow law school student, John O’Connor.
As a female lawyer during the 1950s, she initially had trouble getting work but eventually joined a prosecutor’s office. She took five years off from practicing law after the birth of the second of her three children to tend to them.
In 1965 she joined the office of the Arizona attorney general, a Republican, after campaigning the year before for the Republican nominee for president, Barry Goldwater, a fellow Arizonan. In 1969 the governor appointed her to fill a vacancy in the Arizona Senate, where she rose to become majority leader. She left in 1974 for a state judgeship, eventually rising to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which is the second-highest court in the state.
O’Connor and abortion
President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court in July 1981, fulfilling a campaign promise to name the first woman to the nation’s highest court.
Reagan was unaware at the time of her selection that O’Connor as a Republican state senator in the 1970s supported abortion, according to conservative columnist Robert Novak’s 2007 autobiography “The Prince of Darkness.” When social conservatives erupted over the announcement, Reagan asked his attorney general to check on complaints about her.
The task went to a young aide, who called O’Connor and reported in a memo that she said she could not recall how she had voted on a 1970 bill seeking to legalize abortion in the state — even though she was a co-sponsor of it. (Before the Internet, it wasn’t easy to check such information.)
She also told the aide — Kenneth Starr, who later served as independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton during the 1990s — that she “had never had any disputes or controversies” with the leader of the pro-life movement in Arizona, according to a memo Starr wrote. But the pro-life leader told Novak a couple of days later that she had frequently clashed with O’Connor, calling her “one of the most powerful pro-abortionists in the Senate.”
Even so, O’Connor’s nomination went forward and sailed through the U.S. Senate.
Once she joined the court, O’Connor’s position on abortion wasn’t immediately clear. In 1986, she voted with the minority in a 5-4 ruling that struck down a Pennsylvania law that required abortion providers to inform a woman seeking an abortion about fetal development and about “detrimental physical and psychological effects” and “particular medical risks” of an abortion.
O’Connor in her dissent called the court’s abortion decisions to that time “a major distortion in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence” and said the majority’s decision in the case before it, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “makes it painfully clear that no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion.”
But her most memorable abortion vote came in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which she joined the 5-4 majority in upholding what the court called the “essential holding” of Roe v. Wade that abortion is a “fundamental right” before a fetus is capable of living outside the womb.
In Casey, O’Connor co-wrote the plurality opinion that continued a federal right to abortion for another 30 years.
‘Loosen up, Sandy’
O’Connor was a key player in other landmark decisions as well.
In 1986, she joined the majority in the 5-4 decision Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld as constitutional a state statute in Georgia that criminalized sodomy. (The court overturned that ruling in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas; O’Connor joined the 6-3 majority, though she made a distinction between the two cases because Texas’ law banned sodomy only between two members of the same sex, while Georgia’s statute banned sodomy generally.)
In 2003, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld affirmative action based on race in public university admissions. (The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Grutter decision in June 2023 in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.)
In 2005, she sided with the 5-4 majority in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union that found that displays of the Ten Commandments at two state courthouses in Kentucky violated the Constitution.
She is perhaps better remembered, though, for what happened during a social occasion several years after she joined the court.
In 1985, O’Connor went to a black-tie event in Washington where she was seated near John Riggins, a Washington Redskins star running back, who had drunk “a few beers” and two double scotches before knocking over and spilling four bottles of wine on the table.
O’Connor had previously said she had to leave early and was in the process of doing so when Riggins, trying to get her to stay, piped up: “Loosen up, Sandy baby.”
He then passed out.
O’Connor got a kick out of it and got big laughs when she made a reference to it at the beginning of a speech a few days later.
Retirement
O’Connor retired from the court in January 2006 at age 75 to spend time with her husband, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease around the early 1990s. (He died in 2009.)
O’Connor was replaced by Samuel Alito, who has since become one of the most conservative justices and who wrote the majority decision in Jackson Women’s Health Center v. Dobbs, which last year overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
[…]
You go first, Francis. Show us your devotion to the Word of God, and to service of others. Then we can follow what you do, but not that which (only) you say.
“Preach the Gospel at all times; use words when necessary.”
The Holy Father’s exegesis is itself closed. God can save “closed Christians”. At the end the Holy Father mentions that God can make the deaf hear and the dumb speak. Well, God also can stop up your hearing and your ability to speak what He wants.
But it is flawed in other ways. For example, leading people into temptation -whether in the name of fraternity or the Name of Jesus or the name of charity or the name of being open or whatever name- is not the Gospel and is not speaking of Jesus.
We do not exchange our baptism for the human virtue of brotherliness. To do that comes up to Pelagianism. VATICAN II recommends the practice of human virtues in charity because it is most fitting the call to holiness and the apostolates for these times.
In the first place the fruit of the Holy Ghost is not brotherliness but benignity. And the fruits are not summed up in brotherliness but in magnifying God in His gifts. Holy Father presents the danger not merely in what he says but also in what he does.
In its best light, might we suppose that Pope Francis goes overboard, or maybe only backwards, in his style or sequence of inculturation? Two quotes and a proposal:
FIRST, Cardinal Danielou explains:
“Christianity is always at first [at first!] led to take a stand against the errors of paganism, it [then] goes on to take to itself the good things in it. An obvious example which offers proof of this is the evangelization of the West. Christianity has taken up all that was valuable in the religions of Greece and Rome. Shrines of pagan goddesses became shrines of the Virgin Mary, and the seasonal pagan feasts were displaced by Christmas and Candlemas […] Christianity lifts them up, purifies them, and transfigures them” (“Prayer as a Political Problem,” 1953, p. 91).
SECOND, related to which, and possibly explaining the way-station of pluralist (?) “fraternity,” the Anglican convert, Fr. George William Rutler, gives us this:
“We might say that the cardinal virtues have their counterparts in the quadrivium: music and justice are both sciences of harmony; arithmetic and prudence are sciences of order; geometry and temperance are sciences of transcendence. And the theological virtues comport themselves with the fundamental trivium: grammar being to discourse what faith is to supernatural conversion; rhetoric being to grammar what hope is morally to faith; and dialectic providing a natural analogy of the heavenly discourse of love, just as love is the highest logic of creation. It is an arbitrary scheme, to be sure, but a fair reminder of the community between natural and spiritual sciences” (“Beyond Modernity: Reflections of a Post-Modern Catholic,” Ignatius, 1987, p. 123).
PROPOSAL: “The community between natural AND spiritual sciences”?
Which is to propose that once the Church gets back to making an “un-mess” [!] of things, the prevailing disconnect between so-called “concrete” experiences and so-called “abstract” rigidities might draw from reflections such as these…BECAUSE these frontward reflections are, today, messily perceived and branded as “backwardist.”
(Still, at the Synod on Youth, exchanging the papal crozier for a Wiccan stang was a bit much. Also, housing Pachamama within St. Peter’s Basilica on the same floor as the tabernacle and Real Presence.)
The “abstract rigidities” could be misnomer, Beaulieu, or a misconstrued business (or something off). In different senses too.
For Pope Francis the rigidity is the problem whether it is to do with abstraction or anything else. He is saying either grace is incipiently blocked or virtue is lacking.
I don’t accept it merely on such terms. A priest RIP of the “Francis” type mold used to converse at length about all kinds of things some of it plain out NOT our faith; eg., “Trinity” is “God with 3 hats”.
Trinity is God with 3 chips? Chocolate chips? Raiding the ref? Passing in the night? With 3 hats?
Here you encounter loose wobbly abstracting that is not “rigid” itself but is not our belief. What is behind it COULD be rigid, actually; in the sense of wrong and weighed down stubbornness.
But in another mode abstracting does not produce rigidity just so nor is it a sign of blockaded grace or undeveloped virtue or style-less-ness.
One of the priests who moved my faith now deceased RIP, was brief, repetitive, rebuking, retiring; yet uniquely real and transparent. For his 10-minute homilies he merely repeated passages from the readings. That was his level of abstracting and it was effective articulation.
And the attraction was the father.
In yet a third sense, the explanation of the faith say in the outline of a heresy, ITSELF contains the cure -incipiently; when it often happens that the rigidity lies in the one doing the resisting/rejecting of the faith or resisting/rejecting of the incipient cure that is attempting to pass.
Begging your pardon sir and the Lord’s, I wished to do this well.
The Good News is healing and empowering. Long live the Good News in thought, word, and action.