O’Connor’s moderating influence missing today

This letter is in response to the Associated Press article that ran in the Daily Herald under the headline “Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, has died at age 93.”

Through O’Connor’s passing, many people have learned more about her surprising decisions during her time as a Supreme Court Justice, one of which was her critical vote in the case regarding abortion rights: Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The Supreme Court should be less partisan. Recent decisions have hindered the effects of past ones. A quote from O’Connor included in the story particularly stood out. She had once stated “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our moral code.”

Despite her opinion that abortions were against her morality, moderate conservative O’Connor continued to not take her agenda into the decision. Her aspirations to find a middle ground on several issues played a pivotal role in balancing the Supreme Court. This kind of voice is lost in our courts today.

Absolutism and high partisanship in the courts have prevented real consensus on issues that are important for all women. It feels as though the Supreme Court is straying from the original intent of the founders.

In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton argued for judicial independence, where the judges are not influenced by the executive branch or the legislative branch because of their life tenure which allows them to focus solely on justice. This debate can be observed in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Association ruling, where the highly Republican court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This decision practically erases the history of O’Connor’s rulings regarding protecting women’s health.

It brings on the question of whether O’Connor’s philosophies on moderation are completely gone in the Supreme Court our nation is ruled by today.

Nishita Kumar

Mundelein