Replies

She was picked for her sex. She ruled based on emotions and politics and what she thought was the right thing and saw the constitution as “a work in progress”. She was a living constitution type.

She was a libtard, and the beginning of the permanent female seat on the court. She supported abortion. She heavily supported citing foreign law in cases. She said a prayer before a high school football game was illegal.
She cited EU law in a death penalty case when arguing the mentally ill can’t be executed. So instantly, everyone on death row is “mentally ill”.

“The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark ... [T]here is talk today about the “internationalization of legal relations”. We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts – what is sometimes called “transjudicialism””

“O’Connor once quoted the constitution of the Middle Eastern nation of Bahrain, which states that “no authority shall prevail over the judgement of a judge, and under no circumstances may the course of justice be interfered with.” Further, “it is in everyone’s interest to foster the rule-of-law evolution.” O’Connor proposed that such ideas be taught in American law schools, high schools and universities. Critics contend that such thinking is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and establishes a rule of man, rather than law.”

Agree with everything in this post. She was an affirmative action selection to get a female on the court.

I take particular exception with the references to foreign law. That should be the first check mark against her.

Well. She is gone now.