Sandra Day O'Connor

She was an embarrassment to some of the great people who sat on that bench. I think the way she left was the biggest embarrassment of all. She was on the record as saying she wanted to retire, but wanted to wait for a Republican President. She voted in favor of Bush in the 2000 Election case, instead of recusing herself.

All the years she was on the court she thought she was in the Arizona Legislature and everything must be compromised. She was a tower of jello when it came to principles.

O'Connor is a former legislator. Amd I the only one who thinks that it's a bad idea to put legislators on the nation's highest court? Truly, I respect justices like Ginsberg and Stevens--even though they are farther to the left than any justice has ever been to the right--than I do O'Connor. At least Ginsburg and Stevens have convictions (misguided, but still...). O'Connor has always come off as wishy-washy to me (or moderate for those of you is Boston) and a Supreme Court justice should not be wishy-washy. Her decisions are badly written--just look at the recent Ten Commandments decision for proof on that front. O'Connor was Reagan's biggest mistake as president.

I'm sort of with Pat Riot on this one. O'Connor was never my favorite, for obvious reasons, but she was not completely doctrinaire or predictable, like Scalia and Thomas so unceasingly and depressingly are. My fear is: what kind of extremist are the Republicans likely to put forth to replace her? Considering how spineless the Democrats have shown themselves to be, I'm sure whomever the Republicans put forth will get in without too many problems.

I cannot believe that Rhenquist outlasted her. I shudder to think who her replacement will be. This is what I feared the most during a Bush administration. The tipping of the balance. As a 'liberal', I must hold her somewhat accountable for getting Dubya 'elected', but overall I thought she was one of the best of a very rotten bunch.

Reagan showed historical opportunism and political savvy in nominating her as the first female Supreme Court Justice, preempting the democrats' wish to do so. She is ready to retire and will probably do so in 2006. It's amusing how staunch liberals compliment her for softening on her conservative views, but that is nothing new for republican appointees, Harry Blackmun (one of Nixon's embarrassing appointees) comes to mind. Without him, Roe v. Wade might have become law legislatively, instead of by tyrranical judicial fiat. Justice O'Connor's retirement will ignite an ideological firestorm reniniscent of the Bork hearings even though republicans hold a majority in the Senate.

Another Reagan appointment gone bad. OConner seems to go out of her way to rule on the more narrow of positions at all points in time. Her recent decision in the Michigan affirmative action case where she made the discernment between this program's procedure with set asides as opposed to weighted scoring in others was pure drivel. She the argues that there is still an over arching state interest in promoting racial equality through these means. Thomas dissents pointing to the ridiculous logic by saying this is a violation of the constitution today just as it will be 300 months from now.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has succeeded Lewis Powell as the conscience of the High Court. Conscientious of others, O'Connor has been an effective Justice. Known as a potential swing vote in crucial cases, she might just be the most influential member of today's Supreme Court.

at least she has a smidget of being balance the 2000 election drives her star down.

While I usually do not agree with Sandra Day O'Connor's reasoning, I do usually agree with her end result. Go figure. Anyway, as for compromising, I do not want my rights compromised. I either have a right or I do not.

Has shown signs of losing it in recent years. Citing European polls and laws as a basis for her decision in a capital punishment case two years ago? Since when is Europe a persuasive authority when interpreting U.S. Const. law? Her opinion in this year's affirmative action case is basically Baake revisited, with the same problems still existing. Always trying to balance everything and leaving a dire mess for the rest of us to interpret.

A fair and balanced Justice. The Hon. Madam Justice O'Connor has time and time again proven her ability to take in the facts and render her decision with thoughtful composure that often provides a moderate decision indicative of the mind of most Americans. She doesn't play party politics and doesn't take her cues from Rehnquist/Thomas or Ginsburg/Stevens. When the Hon. Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist does retire, Madam Justice O'Connor should be our next Chief Justice. I agree with another comment and concur that place as often being the swing vote speaks volumes of her influence and power on the court.

My estimation of O'Connor has been heightened in recent years because she's shown that she does have some brains and understands the peril of tainting High Court decisions with rightwing ideology. Her attempts to find consensus, accommodate the varying discrepancies of opinion at the SC and then compromise indicate that she's much more reasonable and realistic than her colleagues on the right hand side of the bench. She's no great jurist in terms of ability and wisdom, but not nearly as reckless as the Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist axis of idiocy.

Her moderate conservative view tends to allow her to be the "swing-vote" giving her unlimitless power. In the 02-03 Supreme Court term, of the thirteen 5-4 votes, Day O'Connor always stood on the side of the majority. This suprising statistic speaks volumes of her power in the court.

I've actually met her...and she's a really great person. Unfortunately, many of her opinions are too fact specific and guided more by personal feelings than law. Supreme Court decisions should be easily generalizable...her opinions are not.

Very effective.

Ms. O'Connor will go down in history as the great compromiser and the one justice that moved the court forward in a responsible manner. Please do not retire, the country needs your level headness and your strong beliefs.