Letters to the Editor: Sandra Day O’Connor showed conservatives the way on abortion. They ignored her

To the editor: The GOP’s antiabortion zealots learned a hard lesson from the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s embrace of Roe vs. Wade — that many conservative women harbor moderate, pro-choice views. (“I thought Sandra Day O’Connor was too conservative. Now her moderation would be a godsend,” Opinion, Dec. 3)

Then-President Trump proclaimed that he would pick a “very brave” woman — implying that she would not be a moderate — to fill the third high court vacancy of his tenure after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

With Amy Coney Barrett having famously urged lawyers to build the “kingdom of God,” Trump found the perfect nominee to please his solidly antiabortion evangelical base. As a justice, Barrett ultimately ruled to reverse Roe, some 30 years after O’Connor had joined in upholding that landmark decision.

Truly, O’Connor should be lionized for calling to account those who would “renegotiate the boundaries between church and state.”

P. Jane Weil, Sacramento

..

To the editor: It must be acknowledged that O’Connor participated in a number of decisions that were moderate from a conservative point of view. On the other hand, it should be remembered that, in what was arguably the most important decision while on the court — Bush vs. Gore — she engaged in rank rationalization to achieve the result she desired.

In his book “Supreme Injustice,” Alan Dershowitz went through the opinions of each of the justices in the majority showing how, in order to reach the “desired” result, they ignored language they either wrote or had agreed to in prior decisions. Had such language and holdings been followed, it would have required them to decide in favor of then-Vice President Al Gore.

O’Connor had many fine qualities, but when it came time for her to act with integrity, she chose to be a partisan. This should impact her legacy for as long as our nation is able to endure.

Joel Drum, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: When I think of O’Connor, I recall these words from her 1982 Stanford commencement address:

“Other societies have not had the same need of lawyers or courts that we have here. While Japan affords perhaps the most extreme example, it is interesting to note that in Japan there is one lawyer for every 10,000 citizens, whereas in California there is one lawyer for every 233 citizens.”

I found this mildly amusing as I sat there receiving my engineering degree just a few rows from disheartened law school graduates who had just heard a Supreme Court Justice effectively state that we have too many lawyers in this country.

Donald Bentley, La Puente