5-4 Decisions Show What’s At Stake
In 5-4 cases, Justice O’Connor often served as the voice of moderation, upholding common-sense values and principles. Below is a list of 5-4 decisions where O’Connor sided with the majority:
O’Connor Preserved Representation For All In Congressional Districting
In 2001, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Hunt v. Cromartie (later renamed Easley v. Cromartie,) to uphold the use of race as a factor in drawing a congressional district, where it was not the “dominant and controlling” factor. [New York Times, 4/19/01]
O’Connor Preserved Diversity On College Campuses
In June, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program. Writing for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
O’Connor Preserved A Woman’s Right to Choose
Declaring that a state may “not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion,” Justice Breyer expressed the 5-4 majority decision, with O’Connor joining, to strike down a Nebraska law that banned late-term abortion procedures. The case was Stenberg vs. Carhart.
In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a 5-4 majority upheld a woman’s right to chose, but allowed states to place restrictions on that right so long as they do not “place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/30/92]
O’Connor Fought To Uphold Civil Liberties In Time of War
In Rasul v. Bush, which involved foreigners held at Guantanamo, O’Connor joined Stevens majority opinion asserting that United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
O’Connor Upheld Campaign Finance Regulations
O’Connor wrote a key opinion and joined in McConnell v. FEC upholding Congress’s efforts to plug the soft-money loophole and regulate electioneering communications.
O’Connor Preserved Due Process In Detention Cases
O’Connor joined Breyer’s majority 5-4 opinion in Zadvydas v. Davis concluding that detention of an illegal immigrant is limited to an amount “reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States” and “does not permit indefinite detention.”
O’Connor Protects The Rights Of The Disabled
In 2004, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Tennessee v. Lane to uphold application of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibits government entities from denying public ’services, programs and activities’ to individuals on the basis of their disability. It also provides that persons who have been harmed by discrimination can seek damages, including from the states.” O’Connor joined the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens.
O’Connor Protects Those Who Complain of Sex Discrimination
In the 2005 case of Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. O’Connor wrote the opinion for a five Justice majority that ruled retaliation against those who complain about illegal sex discrimination was impermissible.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
12 Responses to “5-4 Decisions Show What’s At Stake”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
I’m sure George Bush is peeing himself with excitement.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:46 pmSandra O’Connor was also the source of the quote: “this is terrible” when it looked like Gore was pulling ahead in the election count. Then went on to vote the majority in Bush vs. Gore, possibly the worst SCOTUS ruling ever. Certainly within the top five.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:50 pmHand picking 5-4 decisions where O’Connor was on the 5 side only shows some of the things she stood for. What about the cases where she was against something that the author would have preferred her to be for?
Z.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:23 pmAlan is right. O’Connor is a conservative by our standards. But, we’re not dealing from a position of strength now. Bush can and will nominate someone more conservative than O’Connor, and he will have at least another one appointment to the SC (after Renquist leaves). This development right now is a fortunate event for Bush because it’ll take the focus away from his other failings. Rove will try to pain the Dems as obstructionists.
And, this will be an orchestrated effort from the right. They had lots of time to prepare. The fundies and the far right will be loud in pushing for an extremely conservative judge…. then Bush will try to show that he’s reasonable by appointing a less extreme judge, but a very consrvative one….
It’s going to be a long hot summer…. But, we knew hell was coming since Nov. 3rd, 2004.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pmGet your battle gears on… make obstructionism your middle name…
July 1st, 2005 at 1:57 pma more likely senario . . .
Corporate America’s Pocket
July 1st, 2005 at 2:25 pm“What about the cases where she was against something that the author would have preferred her to be for?”
Do you think there’s any chance Cheney will nominate someone who will vote the other way on those issues?
July 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pmAndros, I agree with you… The best liberals can hope for now is that Bush will appoint a moderate and not some Scalia or something. –Prado might be a good possibility: he’s traditionally had high bipartisan approval, has a history of making independent & balanced decisions. He’d be acceptable to Democrats and would prevent Rove from shrieking about Democrats blocking good potential appointees. I think we need to push for more moderate candidates in order to prevent the SC from swinging, scarily, even further to the right…
July 1st, 2005 at 5:05 pmExcuse me, but that Cromartie case absolutely screwed the Democrats in the south.
The Republicans used to to carve out majority/minority distrcits and ghettoize Democratic voters.
If that decision were reversed, it would force the Republicans to farm out Democratic voters more evenly, and make more districts in the south more competitive.
July 1st, 2005 at 7:42 pm5-4 in favor of a constitutional ammendment allowing the President a third term.
Future looks grim, dont it?
votetoimpeach.org
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:09 amO’Connor was the pivotal vote in Tennessee v Lane, a 5-4 case in which she ruled in favor of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act as applied to the fundamental right of “access to the courts”
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html
This nomination could put a justice on the court who would eviscerate that decision. O’Connor’s retirement means that the Americans with Disabilities Act is hanging on by a thread in the federal courts.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:33 amGo to CHurhc Liberals
February 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pm