I, for one, am tiring of reading biographies of privileged people making good. From volunteer to Assistant Attorney general, nice. Pals with Chief Justice Burger, great. Wonder how she got ahead? All hard work no doubt. Enough thank you.
Of course, people in such positions should be studied, but please avoid papering over the privilege.
3
What's to celebrate? She was a GOP big business advocate, who voted accordingly.
Women can be as mediocre as men.
The review and the comments show how the Supreme Court is an institution of raw politics that is in many perhaps most cases, simply unworthy of our respect and deference. It is reminiscent of the back room horse trading of Chicago politics at their worst.
Most Americans give far too much credence to the Supreme Court and seem to believe that these decisions are handed down from on high like Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. Reality is that it's 9 people in a closed, smoke-filled (metaphorically speaking) room voting, just as Congress does, just as the people do. To think that these decisions represent bedrock legal principles is laughable.
At least SDO resigned and did not put self above country like Notorious RBG and John McCain. RBG is 86. How many 86 year olds are as good physically and mentally as 80 year olds or 70 year olds or 60 year olds? RBG is putting self over country, and i am looking forward to seeing the left go absolutely crazy if/when Trump gets to appoint her replacement. She's a media star now--when does she go on tour?--but this will all be erased when Trump gets to name her replacement.
And when will The Times and other newspapers stop treating these people are secular saints, who work hard and are all "brilliant justices?" They don't do their own work. They don't write their own decisions. They actually do very little except plagiarize from their clerks. This is a pathetic abdication of their responsibilities. Simply disgusting!
3
I note that even the Book Review Section is not immune from the siren song of partisan politics President Bush). Just saying...
3
I am not through listening to the audiobook version of this biography, but what strikes me is that Ms. O'Connor was not a symbol of any movement, liberal, conservative, feminist, or Republican. The way she is drawn in the book, she is a three-dimensional person with a very acute intellect who made practical decisions informed by her personal situation.
She had the luxury and/or burden of being raised in a situation which brought out her independence and self-reliance, and then being comfortably well off and socially connected, leading to her appointment to the Supreme Court from a background without constitutional law expertise.
She then performed the task assigned with fairness and toughness.
Projecting the branding of social movements and political ideology on her seems a distortion. Her political position arouse from her circumstances, not an ideology.
5
I graduated from law school 40 yrs ago, when only about 10% of my class were women and was excited by Ms O’Connor’s appointment. And I thought most of the time that she turned out to be a pretty decent if not brilliant justice. But however excellent the book may be, giving short shrift to her disastrous and clearly politically-motivated role in Bush V Gore undermines the value and objectivity of this book. In the end, all of O’Connor’s time on the court will be tainted by her participation in that decision and all she proved was that women can be as big of political hacks as men. I was not a fan.
5
It's easy to despair that older sensibilities and courtesies are forever gone at a juncture like this. But history does not move in a straight line. Those who would resist the slide of America need to explain clearly why we are going in the wrong direction and what are the consequences. No excuses, get it done.
1
I read nothing in Jeffrey Toobin's review that is new or interesting, much less revelatory. The story of O'Connor's courtship by Rehnquist? Old news. Her role as a centrist justice? Very old news. It's all a rehash of other writings if it is to be judged by Toobin's anecdotes.
My take away is that this is a book that will be viewed as an eye-opener only by those who won't read it in the first place because of a lack of interest.
3
Sandra Day O'Connor was from a remarkable Arizona family as her sister, Ann Day, served for 10 years as an Arizona State Senator, followed by 12 years as a Pima County Supervisor. Ann Day was known for her toughness and an independent streak that led to some philosophical differences with the more conservative members of the Arizona Republican Party. In 2016, four years after retiring from her position as a Pima County Supervisor, she was tragically killed in a head-on collision with an intoxicated driver, on a road less than a mile away from the Safeway where Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
1
I am ready to read any bio by Evan Thomas.
Badly as you/I/we may feel about Bush v Gore and O'Connor's part in it, I just have to say that when i read Thomas' "Being Nixon," I was amazed to see Richard Nixon in a whole new-- newly human-- way, and I was grateful for the insights.
I have every hope that we readers can experience that kind of enlightenment from this book.
5
I will give O'Connor credit for the fact that in later years she did admit that she regretted her vote on Bush v Gore. But that one vote and the words she wrote in the decision will be her legacy. Those words were written simply because the five who gave that election to Bush knew they were doing the wrong thing and were trying to soften the blow by stating that the decision would apply "only" to that particular case. This from the body that defines justice not only for one instance but for all instances.
Nonetheless Thomas's biography of O'Connor which I am currently reading is well-written, thorough, and interesting.
2
Her history changing decision in 2000 opens up old wounds for me. We are left to speculate how different this country would have been if the decision had gone the other way. Makes me sick to think of the lives needlessly lost in Iraq & the consequences of W's vendetta.
24
Tremendous review. The kind that will make people go out and read the book. Read a previous biography by O'Connor's brother, also first-rate, since it reveals the real toughness of O'Connor's upbringing on the ranch in the middle of nowhere. Sadly, her decision in Bush v. Gore plucked the thread that began the great unraveling of a legal system peopled for decades (mostly) by smart, pragmatic people like herself.
25
An otherwise stellar career blighted by her support for Bush V Gore compromising her judicial independence. Well and good she retired. I would like to see term limits set for the SCOTUS more in line with extended life expectancy. We are now saddled with a Republican court which will in my lifetime be conservative. Where are the checks and balances the founding fathers envisioned and set up? Term limits I say will keep the court appointments in check.
16
She was part of the majority in Bush v. Gore, the pernicious elevation of an unelected man to the presidency. For my generation, that single position irredeemably poisoned her legacy.
29
It is difficult, if not immoral to have any sympathy for a Justice who helped steal the 2000 election.
34
@Bill
Poor Bill! Living in a fiction for nineteen years now!
6
While sharing the feelings of all the comments here who feel that she fell far below her own standards in voting as she did in Gore v. Bush, I admire her term on the court and her use of her important swing vote to protect equity law and choice. She was in many ways a woman of her time, but she also in some ways exceeded it. Perhaps things would have turned out for the better if she had not resigned when she did.
21
Increasingly since O'Connor's vote to elevate Bush to a job he was not prepared for and did not win, the court has shown political bias. The court is now an arm of the Republican party. The Supreme Court has too much power. It needs an overhaul beginning with term limits.
35
@Christina
George Bush was prepared, and he won.
You were unprepared for that—and for much else beside.
4
As a Florida resident who followed the 2000 election VERY closely, and listened to the oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the radio - thank you NPR - I can tell you that the right wing SCOTUS justices did not understand - or care - what Florida election law called for in the recount. People also forget that Bush's state campaign chair was Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State at the time, with the power to certify the election results (an unconscienable conflict of interest) which stopped the recounts. Here in Duval County, which was not one of the counties included in Bush's recount suit, we had 36,000 - 40,000 ballots that were NOT counted, primarily from our north and northwest sides of town, which votes highly Democratic. THAT is the crime and pity of that election. Florida, the 3rd largest state, was not given the time to process our election using our state's election laws, and recount our ballots, and Bush's suit, with Katherine Harris's help, moved the election out of our state up to SCOTUS which had NO jurisdiction (since each state has the responsibility for running their own election).
8
@Pat Riot
Prepared for what, to destroy foreign policy over a strongman's threat to his father? Tell of his preparation to the families of the dead, Pat Riot.
1
O'Connor did not move directly from the Arizona senate to the Arizona Court of Appeals. She first served as a trial judge in the Superior Court of Maricopa County in Phoenix. This is important because O'Connor's experience as a trial judge provided her with insights into the judicial process at the grass roots level. Nearly all Supreme Court Justices during the past half century have served as appellate judges but O'Connor is the only Justice during that time -- and one of the few Justices ever -- to have had this experience, which helped inform her decisions as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. I was a teenager in Phoenix when she announced that she was leaving her powerful position as state senate majority leader to seek election as a trial judge. This seemed strange to me at the time since it appeared to be step down in power and prestige, but apparently she knew what she was doing. During my brief career as a journalist, I covered a trial in her court for The Arizona Republic and I was very favorably impressed by Judge O'Connor's crisp and commanding presence. Thank you, Mr. Toobin, for such an insightful review of this biography of such a great Justice. Having very much enjoyed other books by Evan Thomas, I am eagerly looking forward to reading this biography.
13
@Cromer
You are right about many justices of the Supreme Ciurt not having trial court experience but Justice Sotomayer was a district court trial judge before she was an appellate court justice. What really distinguished O’Connor was her legislative experience which is rare for the justices.
13
Great trail blazing jurist, interesting life;
but unfortunately her legacy is the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore (and she knew better at the time).
40
By her vote in Bush v. Gore, she destroyed the reputation of the Court as an impartial judicial body. We can be absolutely certain that neither she nor the other four justices would have stopped the Florida recount had Gore been a few hundred votes ahead of Bush. When judges are faced with the identical facts and identical law but come to opposite conclusions based on the political party of the plaintiff and the defendant, they must be considered politicians, not judges. Thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, a sizable number of Americans rightly do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be fair or legitimate. This is her only real legacy.
32
@Peter Galbraith
I hope Peter will forgive me for picking on him, but I was thrown by his remarks about placing the burden of a 5-4 decision on O’Connor alone and his remark about “Being absolutely certain”. Of course we cannot be sure of anything let alone what might have happened had the tables been turned. As a scientist, i cannot be absolutely certain about physical law, let alone a hypothetical supreme court case.
It pains me to see the tenor of the initial comments on this book focus on the Bush v Gore decision. While that is certainly something that will follow O’Connor into history, we should not blame the outcome of Bush’s tenure as president on her. Instead we should be looking deeper into her background and trying to understand what has become of modern conservatism. I would gladly celebrate if I woke up tomorrow and found we had 5 conservative justices on today’s supreme court that minds like Sanda Day O’Connor.
9
@Edward Beshore I am not blaming Sandra Day O'Connor for Bush's presidency. We don't know what would have happened had there been a full recount in Florida. My point is different. The five justices--including O'Connor--made their decision on partisan political grounds, not judicial ones. In short, they would not have voted to stop the recount if Gore had been ahead of Bush. O'Connor herself implicitly admitted this when she inserted the line that "the decision was limited to the present circumstances."
This was unfair to the plurality of Americans who voted for Gore---Americans who had a right to expect an impartial Court to apply the same rules them as to the other side.
By her vote--and that of her four colleagues who share equally responsibility--Sandra Day O'Connor shredded any pretense that the Supreme Court is an impartial judicial body. This in turn raises questions as to why Americans should accept Court decisions. The founding fathers did not intend the Supreme Court to be a third branch of the legislature, but this is effectively what the Court is. And, unlike the other two branches, voters have no recourse.
14
She did fine until she turned political and help appoint George W. Bush to the Presidency. That one reprehensible act destroys her judicial legacy for me, and undermines my confidence in the political independence of the United States Supreme Court.
36
@Robert Hodge
President Bush won the election.
And then he was elected again.
Wake up from your liberal sleep.
6
@Robert Hodge: What you say is true. But even more unforgivable was O'Connor's choice to retire when a Republican president--George W. Bush--would be able to pick her replacement. She openly stated this was her intention. We ended up with the execrable Samuel Alito, a misogynist whose history included opposition of admitting women to Princeton.
O'Connor had great power, as the author of this review notes. And she threw it away.
Her greatest flaw was being a repulsively partisan Republican.
3
@Pat Riot
We don't know who won in 2000. The SCOTUS decision stopped the FL recount before it was finished. Speculation years after the events settles nothing.
2
toobin is right about o'connor's shabby decision of the 2000 election throwing the presidency to bush2.
it's long lasting consequences caused the deaths of thousands of lives--a fraction of them american.
and enough money to pay for a national health care plan and god knows what else with money left over.
specifically writing the decision couldn't be used as a precedent makes it obvious bush2 was placed in office by a judicial coup.
33
She was a pioneer, but she also voted to select George W Bush as president in 2000 in a 5 to 4 vote on the Supreme Court. Look at the damage that one vote did to our nation and the Middle East.
If there had been a recount of all ballots from every county in Florida, the outcome of that election would have been very different
As for maintaining the present form of Affirmative Action, it has mostly benefited middle class white women and descendants of immigrants who chose to come here. There is a small impact on the descendants of African slaves and indigenous people.
She had very little experience of a deprivation in her early life.
16
This book is already on my “must read” list.Sandra Day O’Connor had a huge effect on the aspirations of women, not only in the law but in other professions.Nearly 40 years ago women were not appointed to prestigious positions.Her elevation to the Court was a stunning and welcome action.I hope that she is able to enjoy the acclaim that will come to her from this wonderfully written biography.
11