Bob Woodward, Scott Armstrong and others could have published a book in 1979 about the Supreme Court with the title The Brethren. Justice O’Connor’s nomination changed all of that and more.
Justice O’Connor, as you know, was the first woman to serve on the Court. She was, for the moment, also a final: she was the last Justice who held an elective public position (as a senator and as first female majority leader in a state senate). Her experience as a politician was reflected in her complex opinions, sometimes for the Court but also in other writings. These were on issues of importance in the law and democracy. They ranged from political gerrymandering, minority vote diluting or excessive race consciousness. In a wonderful article on the History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in 49 Vand. L. Rev. 657 (1996).)
Justice O’Connor knew that she made a difference on the Supreme Court, not just because she voted so often in favor of the majority, but also because she is a woman. She was not able to express this in a direct manner, but she paid homage to her colleague Thurgood Marsh (Thurgood: The Influence Of A Raconteur 44 Stan. L. Rev. The point was made in a very elegant way by 1217 (1992).
Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 (2003)), which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action plan, was a good example. The court affirmed the affirmative action program of the University of Michigan Law School in a 2003 decision, 306 (2003).
To cultivate leaders who are legitimate in the eyes the citizens, the path to leadership must be visible and open to all talented and qualified people of any race or ethnicity. All members of this heterogeneous community must be confident in the integrity and openness of the educational institutions who provide the training.
The fact that the Court turned its back on both her work in regard to affirmative actions and the women’s rights to decide whether or not to have a child is an indication of how much we lost. Her work will be remembered.