Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Sandra Day O'Connor's legacy has been dismantled

Opinion

Sandra Day O'Connor being sworn in as a Supreme Court justice

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took office in 1981. Exepcted to serve in Supreme Court's conservative wing, she established herself as a free thinker.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

Regardless of your political leanings, this is a time for mourning. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has died.

Ninety-eight percent of Americans — those born before June 24, 2022, the day Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was decided — lived in O’Connor’s world. No longer. Her legacy as a judicial pioneer, a rational and thoughtful jurist, and, yes, even a champion of the rights of women and minorities, has abruptly been dismantled in just the last 18 months. Even for liberals like me, it is a tragic development.

O’Connor was a darling of the right, and for the most part she did not disappoint. The first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, O’Connor was often described as a “moderate” or “classical” conservative. She emerged as both an independent thinker and the all-important swing vote later in her career. She worked to build consensus on a deeply divided court and to shape opinions in her image of a “more perfect Union.”


Sandra Day O’Connor’s impact on two areas of jurisprudence — abortion and affirmative action — is beyond compare. Publicly, it is well-known that she delivered the critical fifth vote in the landmark 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey that upheld a woman’s right to privacy. But it is what she did behind the scenes in that case that qualifies her as a true champion of civil liberties. She refused to buckle under the pressure of the far-right bloc — all men, mind you — when they were clamoring to overturn Roe v. Wade. She threatened to move farther to the left if the likes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Byron White continued their crusade to strip women of the constitutional ability to seek an abortion.

She withstood the withering, and quite personal, attack from Scalia, who not so subtly analogized her majority opinion in Casey with that of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the author of the horrifically repulsive Dred Scott decision, which determined enslaved Blacks were neither citizens nor had any legal rights. O’Connor, to her credit, was determined to preserve the liberty of those Americans (pregnant women in this case) who do not have an adequate voice in the political process.

The same is true in the constitutional arena of affirmative action. O’Connor was the critical, albeit conservative, voice in allowing institutions of higher education to consider race in admissions. Again, she did her best work behind the scenes. While the court struggled with how to thread the equal protection needle in affirmative action cases, O’Connor left the door open for colleges to continue their affirmative action policies. She argued, in Grutter v. Bollinger, that the longstanding judicial practice of disallowing racial preferences could be overcome if a college sought to diversify its student body with an admissions approach that did not set quotas and where admissions officials read each application individually. Affirmative action strategies, she concluded, were not “fatal” simply because they spotlighted race. Diversity in the classroom was a “compelling state interest.” A majority of jurists on the nation’s highest court agreed.

Sadly, the contemporary high court does not agree. The Harvard and University of North Carolina affirmative action cases, as well as Dobbs, signal the end of a generational expanse in which O’Connor’s constitutional statecraft ruled the day — a period, I would argue, that was far less polarizing than the one we inhabit now. Indeed, she would find it highly ironic that in case after case the dissenters are all women. She would surely recall those battles she waged with a patriarchal institution. Sandra Day O’Connor’s world is now gone, erased by a Supreme Court that neither embraces her sagacity nor seemingly cares about her legacy.

Read More

MAGA says no to Trump & Kennedy’s junk science

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions after making an announcement on“ significant medical and scientific findings for America’ s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health...

(Getty Images)

MAGA says no to Trump & Kennedy’s junk science

President Trump stood at the White House podium, addressing a room full of reporters.

“First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of…ah-said-a…well…let’s see how we say that.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

American flag

Nattawat Kaewjirasit/EyeEm/Getty Images

Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Luke Harris, a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President
white concrete dome museum

The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President

Money is power. In our system of government, that power was intended to rest squarely with Congress. Yet in recent years, we’ve seen presidents of both parties find ways to sidestep Congress’s “power of the purse” authority, steadily chipping away at their Article I powers and turning appropriations into suggestions rather than binding law.

As someone who served in the House of Representatives — and in its leadership — I saw firsthand how seriously members of both parties took this duty. Regardless of ideology, we understood that Congress’s control of the purse is not just a budgetary function but a core constitutional responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less