Justice Sandra Day OConnor
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR -- (Senate - July 01, 2005)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to mark a historic occasion, and that is the retirement of our Nation's first female Supreme Court Justice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the father of two daughters who are now 22 and 23, I appreciate in so many ways the career of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but one of the ways I appreciate her career is that she has paved the way toward the highest accomplishment for women in our society, and for that I shall be grateful always.
She was Justice O'Connor, after all, born in El Paso, TX--I have to remind my colleagues of that--on March 26, 1930. She married law school classmate John Jay 0'Connor III in 1952 and raised three sons: Scott, Brian, and Jay--all while managing, as many women do in our society today, a career and family at the same time, but in this instance demonstrating and living out one of the most remarkable legal and political careers in our history.
She received her undergraduate and law degrees at Stanford University and graduated third in her class. She then served as deputy county attorney in San Mateo County, CA, and then as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt, Germany. She later served as assistant attorney general of Arizona and then as a member of the Arizona State Senate. As one who has now served in the executive branch and the judicial branch of State government in Texas and now serves in the legislative branch in Washington, the kind of service Justice O'Connor has had in all of her varied and important positions during her career has well prepared her as a Justice on the Court and understanding both the opportunities and potential and the limitation of government to do good in our country and in our society and what questions can be resolved by government and which questions are best reserved to the people.
In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served there until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. In 1981, it was President Ronald Reagan who nominated her as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has written two books, ``Lazy B'' and her most recent, ``Majesty of the Law.''
Justice O'Connor has played a leading role in some of the Nation's most contentious legal disputes in recent years. And she has provided a critical voice of judicial restraint on a number of important issues on which the Court is closely divided 5 to 4.
She authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion upholding the three-strikes-and-you're-out law for repeat convicted criminals. She wrote the Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi, affirming the President's legal authority to detain enemy combatants in wartime and thus preserving a key tool in the ongoing global war on terrorism. She provided the critical fifth vote protecting the First Amendment freedom of association of the Boy Scouts. She has provided the critical fifth vote in case after case after case, involving the important role that States play in our federalist system of Government, and in the protection of religious liberties and religious expression in the public square.
Justice O'Connor has made important contributions to our jurisprudence, even when she was not part of the Court's ruling majority. Just last week, she penned an important dissent on behalf of private property rights against overreaching and ever-growing government--and against the 5-4 majority ruling in Kelo which has attracted so much national attention and outrage this past week. Last year, she provided a critical voice in defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, even though a majority of her colleagues refused to do so. And 2 years ago, she demonstrated respect for precedent when she refused to join the Court's controversial majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that inspired State and Federal court rulings and local government actions against traditional marriage laws nationwide.
Throughout her 24 years of service on the Nation's highest court, Justice O'Connor worked to restore common sense to our criminal justice system and due regard for the power reserved to the States under the Constitution, and to limit restrictions on faith in the public square. Thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, victims of crime are more likely to receive justice, and inner city children are no longer constitutionally barred from access to school choice programs. Although I have not always agreed with her rulings, I have always felt a deep and abiding respect for her commitment to public service, her reverence for the law, and her regard for her fellow man and woman.
In a time when so many controversial issues divide Americans of good will, it is especially critical that our Federal courts, led by our Supreme Court, be steadfast in its interpretation and application of the law as it is written, and for our courts to avoid picking winner and losers in the great political debates of our day. Under the steady hand of Sandra Day O'Connor, America has weathered some of the most heated legal controversies our Nation has ever endured--and for that, the American people will forever be grateful.
Today's historic announcement also raises an important question about the Senate and the role we will play in the confirmation process of the President's selection to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Moments ago the President called upon the Senate for a dignified process, and I think we should heed that call. We should conduct ourselves in a way worthy of this great body, which has served the Nation for more than 200 years, and which time after time after time, when there has been a vacancy on the Court, has done its job, providing advice and consent, asking hard questions, investigating the background of the President's nominees--but ultimately providing an up-or-down vote to each and every one of the President's nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The process for considering the next Associate Justice should reflect the best of the American judiciary--not the worst of American politics. We deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law--and a confirmation process that is civil, respectful, and keeps politics out of the judiciary.
As I wrote in an op-ed piece this past Monday in National Review Online, which I had printed in the RECORD yesterday, history affords us some important benchmarks for determining whether the Senate has undertaken a confirmation process worthy of the Court and of the American people. There is a right way and a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court nominee. The Senate's past record, unfortunately, has been mixed.
Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications--not personal political beliefs. Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks.
I wish to congratulate Sandra Day O'Connor on her extraordinary life and commitment to public service. I wish her and her family well. I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov