[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 91 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7888-S7889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to mark a historic occasion, and 
that is the retirement of our Nation's first female Supreme Court 
Justice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the father of two daughters 
who are now 22 and 23, I

[[Page S7889]]

appreciate in so many ways the career of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 
but one of the ways I appreciate her career is that she has paved the 
way toward the highest accomplishment for women in our society, and for 
that I shall be grateful always.
  She was Justice O'Connor, after all, born in El Paso, TX--I have to 
remind my colleagues of that--on March 26, 1930. She married law school 
classmate John Jay 0'Connor III in 1952 and raised three sons: Scott, 
Brian, and Jay--all while managing, as many women do in our society 
today, a career and family at the same time, but in this instance 
demonstrating and living out one of the most remarkable legal and 
political careers in our history.
  She received her undergraduate and law degrees at Stanford University 
and graduated third in her class. She then served as deputy county 
attorney in San Mateo County, CA, and then as a civilian attorney for 
Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt, Germany. She later served as 
assistant attorney general of Arizona and then as a member of the 
Arizona State Senate. As one who has now served in the executive branch 
and the judicial branch of State government in Texas and now serves in 
the legislative branch in Washington, the kind of service Justice 
O'Connor has had in all of her varied and important positions during 
her career has well prepared her as a Justice on the Court and 
understanding both the opportunities and potential and the limitation 
of government to do good in our country and in our society and what 
questions can be resolved by government and which questions are best 
reserved to the people.
  In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court 
and served there until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona 
Court of Appeals. In 1981, it was President Ronald Reagan who nominated 
her as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has written two 
books, ``Lazy B'' and her most recent, ``Majesty of the Law.''
  Justice O'Connor has played a leading role in some of the Nation's 
most contentious legal disputes in recent years. And she has provided a 
critical voice of judicial restraint on a number of important issues on 
which the Court is closely divided 5 to 4.
  She authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion upholding the three-
strikes-and-you're-out law for repeat convicted criminals. She wrote 
the Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi, affirming the President's legal 
authority to detain enemy combatants in wartime and thus preserving a 
key tool in the ongoing global war on terrorism. She provided the 
critical fifth vote protecting the First Amendment freedom of 
association of the Boy Scouts. She has provided the critical fifth vote 
in case after case after case, involving the important role that States 
play in our federalist system of Government, and in the protection of 
religious liberties and religious expression in the public square.
  Justice O'Connor has made important contributions to our 
jurisprudence, even when she was not part of the Court's ruling 
majority. Just last week, she penned an important dissent on behalf of 
private property rights against overreaching and ever-growing 
government--and against the 5-4 majority ruling in Kelo which has 
attracted so much national attention and outrage this past week. Last 
year, she provided a critical voice in defense of the voluntary 
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, even though a 
majority of her colleagues refused to do so. And 2 years ago, she 
demonstrated respect for precedent when she refused to join the Court's 
controversial majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision 
that inspired State and Federal court rulings and local government 
actions against traditional marriage laws nationwide.
  Throughout her 24 years of service on the Nation's highest court, 
Justice O'Connor worked to restore common sense to our criminal justice 
system and due regard for the power reserved to the States under the 
Constitution, and to limit restrictions on faith in the public square. 
Thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, victims of crime are more likely to 
receive justice, and inner city children are no longer constitutionally 
barred from access to school choice programs. Although I have not 
always agreed with her rulings, I have always felt a deep and abiding 
respect for her commitment to public service, her reverence for the 
law, and her regard for her fellow man and woman.
  In a time when so many controversial issues divide Americans of good 
will, it is especially critical that our Federal courts, led by our 
Supreme Court, be steadfast in its interpretation and application of 
the law as it is written, and for our courts to avoid picking winner 
and losers in the great political debates of our day. Under the steady 
hand of Sandra Day O'Connor, America has weathered some of the most 
heated legal controversies our Nation has ever endured--and for that, 
the American people will forever be grateful.
  Today's historic announcement also raises an important question about 
the Senate and the role we will play in the confirmation process of the 
President's selection to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme 
Court. Moments ago the President called upon the Senate for a dignified 
process, and I think we should heed that call. We should conduct 
ourselves in a way worthy of this great body, which has served the 
Nation for more than 200 years, and which time after time after time, 
when there has been a vacancy on the Court, has done its job, providing 
advice and consent, asking hard questions, investigating the background 
of the President's nominees--but ultimately providing an up-or-down 
vote to each and every one of the President's nominees to the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  The process for considering the next Associate Justice should reflect 
the best of the American judiciary--not the worst of American politics. 
We deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law--and a 
confirmation process that is civil, respectful, and keeps politics out 
of the judiciary.
  As I wrote in an op-ed piece this past Monday in National Review 
Online, which I had printed in the Record yesterday, history affords us 
some important benchmarks for determining whether the Senate has 
undertaken a confirmation process worthy of the Court and of the 
American people. There is a right way and a wrong way to debate the 
merits of a Supreme Court nominee. The Senate's past record, 
unfortunately, has been mixed.
  Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on 
judicial qualifications--not personal political beliefs. Whoever the 
nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, 
not partisan personal attacks.
  I wish to congratulate Sandra Day O'Connor on her extraordinary life 
and commitment to public service. I wish her and her family well. I 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________