the main criticism among GOP woman had been that Reagan ( a former Dem, labor leader and actor) was a male chauvinist. to counter that narrative, reagan set out to nominate the first woman to the SC, Sandra Day O.'connor also, Bush sr in the early 90s had set out to nominate a Black man. Clarence Thomas, as a replacement to the most liberal member of the SC, Thurgood Marshall, who was Black
Imagine that he did that. He would be roasted for not telling the public that he would nominate a black woman, a 1st in history. Why so stealthy? Why didn't he follow in the footstep of the great Ronald Reagan and announce a nomination of historic importance? And at least a few will think it's a handout either way. Conservative labeled Sotomayor as a pick to fill a quota, not because of her qualification. Pat Buchanan called her a quota queen. Biden promised it, he campaigned on it, he was elected over it, he is going to do it. So many complaints. The one that takes the cake and is so sad because some will believe it, is that it's unconstitutional.
Of course a hyperpartisan person like you would want an activist supreme court justice to overturn existing law and intrude in a woman's most personal decision... but Justice O'Connor believed it was not the court's position to overturn precedence unless there was the most compelling of reasons to do so nor was their a reason to. And btw, she was joined by two other republican-appointed justices in her written decision (back in the day when the supreme court wasn't just an extension of the republican party). In her own words: "Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education. … Our cases recognize 'the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.' … Our precedents 'have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.' … These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. "These considerations begin our analysis of the woman's interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society."
She ruled the way Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett claimed they would rule in their confirmation hearings. Following precedent.
Yes, well, we know how honest they were... or more accurately, how dishonest they were. But what can you expect from an activist politically motivated court?
Strange whataboutism... you must be more upset with George W Bush... he nominated Alito to replace O'Connor instead of Brown. Or maybe trump, who replaced sessions with barr instead of Brown.
