The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: A Refusal to 'Foreclose the Unanticipated'
Wilson Ray Huhn
University of Akron - School of Law
November 5, 2010
AKRON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 39, pp. 373-415, 2006
University of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-03
This article describes and evaluates Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's constitutional jurisprudence. Part I of the article covers an early period on the Court when Justice O'Connor seemed principally concerned with questions of jurisdiction and appellate process, during which she was frequently inclined to dispose of cases on technical or procedural grounds. Part II discusses Justice O'Connor's attention to detail and consideration of factual context and her tendency to adjust the traditional standards of review in light of the circumstances of the case. Part III outlines Justice O'Connor's respect for precedent and commitment to the principle of stare decisis particularly as it relates to her refusal to overrule the case of Roe v. Wade. Part IV describes how her judicial philosophy evolved during her tenure on the Court in a number of areas, including abortion and the right to privacy, gay rights, affirmative action, the separation of church and state, procedural due process and the war on terror, federalism and civil rights. In the end, Justice O'Connor achieved a deep understanding and formulated a nuanced articulation of the fundamental American values embodied by the Constitution.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: Constitutional Law, Equal Protection, Due Process, Federalism, Separation of Church and State
JEL Classification: K19Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 11, 2006 ; Last revised: November 7, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.688 seconds