Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: A Pioneer and Trailblazer for Women in Law

Summary

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been a beacon of light and a champion of justice in the United States since her landmark Supreme Court nomination in 1981. She was the first woman to be nominated and the first woman to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. During her time on the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor helped shape American law in ways that will impact generations to come.


Yet her work has not gone unrecognized. O'Connor has been awarded numerous honors in her lifetime, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. She has also been inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.

Justice O'Connor embodied the spirit of the rule of law and the ideals of our democracy. She was a champion for civil rights and women's rights and a vocal advocate for the rights of minorities and the most vulnerable members of society.

O'Connor's steadfast commitment to the rule of law was evident in her many Supreme Court opinions, which set precedents that will influence our society for years to come. Her opinions on issues such as affirmative action, the death penalty, campaign finance reform, and same-sex marriage have been widely praised as landmark rulings. Her rulings have also been credited with helping to create a fairer and more just society.

Justice O'Connor's legacy will forever be remembered. She paved the way for future generations of women to serve on the Supreme Court, and her commitment to the rule of law and justice will continue to reverberate in our society. It is only fitting that her name be celebrated and that her memory be honored with the justice she devoted her life to protecting and defending.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to be nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court. She has been recognized for her work in the legal field with numerous honors, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and for her contributions to civil rights, women's rights, and other important issues of justice. O'Connor's Supreme Court opinions have served to shape American law and set precedents for generations to come. Her steadfast commitment to the rule of law, and her work to create a fairer and more just society, will continue to be remembered as her legacy. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will forever be remembered as a champion of justice.
 

The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor

The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor Ruled on a variety of cases during her twenty-four years on the Supreme Court, but she was best known for her advocacy of gender equality. O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan on July 7, 1981, becoming the first woman to serve on the highest court of the land. O'Connor was considered a moderate conservative during her tenure, often ruling in favor of the government or in support of civil rights. She was widely respected by both sides of the political aisle, inspiring a generation of women to pursue careers in law and justice.
 

O'Connor's Early Life and Career

Born in El Paso, Texas in 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was raised on a cattle ranch in Arizona. She attended Stanford University on a partial scholarship and obtained her law degree from the same school in 1952. O'Connor worked as an attorney in both private practice and in the public sector, including a stint as a state senator in Arizona from 1969-1974. O'Connor was then appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979, the same year she was awarded an honorary LL.D. from Harvard Law School. O'Connor was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1981.
 

Contributions on the Supreme Court

In her 24 years on the nation's highest court, O'Connor was known as one of the court's Swing Votes, ruling in favor of or against both conservative and liberal views. O'Connor was a champion of gender equality, ruling in favor of gender equity in school sports. She was a voice of reason on the court, often advocating for consensus building and compromise. O'Connor was also an advocate of the separation of church and state, ruling in favor of those issues in several cases.
 

Paving the Way For Women in Law

Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure on the Supreme Court paved the way for women in the legal profession. O'Connor was a role model for women in law, inspiring a generation to pursue their dreams of justice and equality. O'Connor's life and career is evidence that any woman can make a difference in the legal arena. O'Connor was a true trailblazer in her lifetime and her legacy will inspire young women for generations to come.

The facts of the case were never in dispute. Christopher Simmons, age 17 and three months, bragged that he wanted to murder someone. He assured his young friend Charles Benjamin that they could "get away with it" because they were juveniles. About 2 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 9, 1993, he and Benjamin broke into the home of Shirley Crook in Jefferson County, Mo., a few miles southwest of St. Louis. Simmons had become acquainted with Mrs. Crook through an automobile accident in which both were involved.

Simmons used duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands. They put the terrified woman into her own minivan, drove to a state park by the Meramec River, and tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire. Prolonging her agony, they wrapped her whole face in duct tape. Finally they threw her body from a bridge into the water below. Fishermen recovered her body the next day.

Simmons and Benjamin were quickly arrested and brought to trial for murder. Benjamin turned state's evidence. A jury found Simmons guilty. The trial court imposed a death sentence, but Missouri's Supreme Court, after first affirming the sentence in 1997, reversed itself in 2003. Simmons was resentenced instead to life in prison. The state appealed, and last week Missouri lost again in the U.S. Supreme Court. Simmons will live. It is more than can be said of Shirley Crook.

Joining the high court's liberal bloc, Justice Kennedy relied primarily upon "our society's evolving standards of decency." It is a talismanic phrase the court employs when it is up to hocus-pocus. In concluding that murderers under the age of 18 should be treated as a class exempt from capital punishment, Kennedy advanced three reasons: (1) an underdeveloped sense of responsibility is understandable among the young; (2) juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences and peer pressures than older defendants; and (3) the character of a juvenile is not as well-formed as that of an adult. Therefore, from a moral standpoint, "It would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult."

Justice O'Connor leaped upon Kennedy's term paper. She agreed that many young people — indeed, perhaps most young people — have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility. But differences in the aggregate frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals. "Although it may be that many 17-year-old murderers lack sufficient maturity to deserve the death penalty, some juvenile murderers may be quite mature."

She added: "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.' In short, the class of offenders exempted from capital punishment by today's decision is too broad and too diverse to warrant a categorical prohibition. Indeed, the age-based line drawn by the court is indefensibly arbitrary."

Justice O'Connor's approach is both wise and constitutional. The power to punish murder is a power reserved to the states respectively or to the people. If a line is to be drawn at a defendant's 18th birthday, it is the primary responsibility of state legislatures to draw it. From the objective evidence of an emerging consensus, courts may reasonably infer a defensible contemporary interpretation of change.

Would the execution of Christopher Simmons be both cruel and unusual? The Eighth Amendment, said O'Connor, "is not a static command." Every generation bears the responsibility for defining crime and fixing punishment. The people of Missouri, acting through their legislature, have sanctioned capital punishment for murder committed by killers as young as 17. That legislative judgment is entitled to respect — but a jury's recommendation of a death sentence is not necessarily final.

What is needed in these death sentence cases, she said, is a "more narrowly tailored remedy." Appropriate weight must be given to the mitigating characteristics related to youth, but as every parent and teacher knows, not all 17-year-olds are alike. Grand juries do not indict statistical phyla. They indict individuals, one by one, and juries convict one by one. Christopher Simmons murdered a defenseless woman in cold blood. The trial court in Missouri got it right the first time. She deserved to live. He deserved to die.

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.