Talk:Sandra Day O'Connor

Arizona Proposition 200
I reverted a set of edits today, mostly because of POV phrasing (a check of the editor's history suggests he is a WP:SPA editor on issues of immigration). As you can see from my edit summary "...first of 2," I had planned to follow up with an additional edit including the info about Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), but in a non-POV way. However, only after that edit did I find that this case was after O'Connor retired; she was sitting by designation as a court of appeals judge on the Ninth Circuit: see, for example. Besides, she didn't even write the opinion. It was by Judge Ikuta; O'Connor was just the second vote:.

So I'm thinking this is not a significant ruling, certainly not in the same class as the notable Supreme Court rulings; so I'm not following up with that second edit to re-add it.

If there's a consensus that this should be in there, please make it POV-neutral and providing sources. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fix Appearance of O'Connor's Photo
O'Connor's main photo is not appearing when viewing her Wikipedia page via Facebook (see link below). This needs to be fixed because when Justice O'Connor is added to the "Inspirational People" section of users Facebook pages, there is a blank thumbnail for her photo.

Here is the link to Facebook's "Wikipedia" page of O'Connor: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sandra-Day-OConnor/108065432548366

IcePop2000 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception of a garland and a book
The article tells us:
 *  During the inauguration of Mesa Municipal Court on April 16, 2010, she gracefully received a blessed garland - along with a copy of Bhagvad-gita As It Is from Dr Prayag Narayan Misra- a Hare Krishna devotee 

This was added in this edit (made by PrayagNarayanMisra, who also made this edit). But even putting aside its authorship, the reception of a garland and a book strikes me as unremarkable and deletable. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

early career
Why is there almost nothing in this article about her career between law school and her appointment to the Supreme Court? john k (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly five years (!) later and this is still an issue. O'Connor's pre-SCOTUS career needs to be covered in more detail. If anyone wants to spearhead this now, that would be great. Even providing reliable sources covering that time period in some detail would be helpful. Knope7 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed Line
I removed the line about a commentator questioning whether she is eligible to hear cases as a retired justice. First, the link was broken. Second, even if it is an accurate quote, including it is misleading, given that the authority for retired Justices to sit by designation is codified in 28 U.S. Code § 294 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/294). JCO312 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation hearing detail in the lead?
It seems unnecessary to include details about her confirmation in the lead: "Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate in 1981[5] was supported by most conservatives, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, and liberals, including Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and women's rights groups like the National Organization for Women." This is not especially relevant to her biography, and no other Justice gets the same treatment. --Fixed245 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that her confirmation was unanimous is fine, but I think cutting the rest of the sentence is a good idea. Knope7 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sandra Day O'Connor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1796
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/advocate/83283.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215034234/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Names-Medal-of-Freedom-Recipients/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Names-Medal-of-Freedom-Recipients/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812220533/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Background-on-Medal-of-Freedom-ceremony/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Background-on-Medal-of-Freedom-ceremony/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2009-08/article02_1.cfm?WT.cg_n=TTB&WT.cg_s=Aug09_article02_tableOfContents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Deputy County Attorney
Most websites seem to say that O'Connor worked unpaid in the County Attorney's office and then later became the Deputy County Attorney. I'm not sure whether I should edit the article to reflect this.
 * Check under the "Early career and marriage" section. There is a mention of her being Deputy County Attorney. If you have more detail to add, that's fine, but please try to cite to a reliable source. Knope7 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Separate article for "Legacy and awards" list
I propose turning "Legacy and awards" into a stand alone list. This would allow us to trim the article a little and possibly replace the current list with a short section of prose. I've also considered maybe a separate article on her Supreme Court jurisprudence, although that seems like a heavier lift. Any thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, six years on I have started a short section of prose. There is probably still more to summarize in this section. Einsof (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

First Amendment
I have removed the following list of First Amendment cases from the article. I am leaving this here for future reference, in the event anyone would like to try and integrate any of these cases into the article:

Notable First Amendment Court Cases: R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990). Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982). Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986). United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310(1990). Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986). Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S 668 (1984). Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983). Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995). McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Knope7 (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandra Day O'Connor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021204/http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2007/03/15/News/Judge.Pryor.On.Judicial.Independence-2777228.shtml to http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2007/03/15/News/Judge.Pryor.On.Judicial.Independence-2777228.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Military spouse
AnubisIbizu seeks to include mention that O'Connor was one of two military spouses on SCOTUS, but nothing indicates why this is meaningful, other than AnubisIbizu's assertion shared in their edit summary (reverting me) that there's some "unique perspective that her life experience as a military spouse brought to her jurisprudence". Without a source confirmed that such a "unique perspective" exists, this seems like trivia. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The cited source states specifically that "military service "provides a special perspectiveon the intersecting powers of the federal government," and "Justices who have served in the armed forces prior to serving on the Court have additional practical experience in how those powers function.”" Internal citations are to the Supreme Court Historical Society saying the same.
 * For more credible sources about the unique perspectives of military spouses, see also "ARMY VETERANS’ WIVES TALK ABOUT THE UNIQUE LIFE AND ROLE OF A MILITARY SPOUSE", "What It Means To Be A Military Spouse", and "VA actively recruits military spouses for careers serving Veterans". Your comment feels a bit like it is driven by anti-military bias to be honest. Saying that it is "trivia" that two Supreme Court justice ever shared a unique perceptive as military spouses is like saying the same based not he fact that only two justices have ever been Black. Your suggested edit is coming off as a big hateful. AnubisIbizu (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and stop slinging accusations. The source you added discusses the impact of military service on jurisprudence, but not being a military spouse. The other sources you've listed here don't speak to the assertion you are trying to make: that being a military spouse impacted their jurisprudence on SCOTUS. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you joking right now? Go read the jurisprudence page. It specifically quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes for the proposition that "[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." O'Connor lived experience as a military spouse informs her jurisprudence. It is common sense, and these articles at the very least create a reasonable inference to that effect. To argue otherwise is, again, ate argue that living as a Black person does not affect your philosophy of the law. Would you remove the fact that KBJ is the first Black woman Supreme Court justice from her page? Then why would you remove that Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman military spouse? I am really assuming good faith, but all your comments read like bigotry. AnubisIbizu (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If it were common sense that being a military spouse influences how one performs as a judge there would be plenty of sources to indicate how it is noteworthy. Your opinion isn't sufficient. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, well I just cited one of the greatest justice of the Court, five credible sources, and a wikipedia page to support my edit. You have offered nothing other than bigoted anti-military sentiments. Is this thread finished? AnubisIbizu (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, please be civil. You haven't provided any sources that specifically indicate being a military spouse impacts one's role on SCOTUS, or that it is inherently meaningful to mention in her biography. -- Zim Zala Bim  talk 02:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. My article inclusion merely reads that O'Connor was one of two military spouses, and I added a citation for that exact proposition. This whole conversation was based on your wanting to know how that lived experience affects her jurisprudence, which I also demonstrated. If you really want to try this hard to remove factual information about people's minority demographics or unique characteristics that one or two people in human existence have shared, then you should not be a wikipedia editor, you should be a Proud Boy. AnubisIbizu (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that what you included was true, but just that it hasn't been shown to be specifically relevant for inclusion. And I'm reporting your increased personal attacks. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and play victim since your arguments have no substantive force anymore. AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that spousal occupation is irrelevant unless there are sources specifically discussing the significance of a particular spousal occupation. Furthermore, it is rather disingenuous to characterize Sandra Day O'Connor as a "military spouse", as if her husband, John Jay O'Connor, was some sort of career officer, rather than having served for two years early in their marriage, a fraction of his legal career occuring a quarter-century before O'Connor joined the Court. BD2412  T 06:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Military spouse" is not a reference to spousal occupation, it is a specific designation unique to SDO, statutorily created by Department of Defense regulation. According to DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, a military spouse is "The spouse of an active duty member of the Military Services." She meets that definition. To remove that definition of her is to remove her identity. To call that disingenuous is derogatory and disrespectful to her. It would be like saying that it is disingenuous not to call a service member a veteran because they only served six months honorably--even though they would qualify as a veteran under the DOD definition, which creates the "veteran" designation. The service member need not be a career officer for the spouse to be a military spouse.
 * Moreover, she deployed to Germany with her husband, and she served a civilian attorney for the Army's Quartermaster Corps. She was much more than a military spouse, she basically served herself. For people who have not served in the military or been military spouses themselves (assuming neither you nor Him have), you cannot speak to this. And you both are forcing against the definition of the terms to remove this part of her identity from her page. AnubisIbizu (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as the Supreme Court Historical Society has stated, veterans are important in the Supreme Court because military service "
 * provides a special perspective
 * on the intersecting powers of the federal government," and "Justices who have served in the armed forces prior to serving on the Court have
 * additional practical experience
 * in how those powers function.” Again, you have not proven how that is not significant or unique, as is your burden.
 * Indeed, the Supreme Court itself tracks how many of its members have served in the military.
 * Further, at least one peer-reviewed academic article has discussed how military service impacts the Supreme Court justice's perspectives while on the Court. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens,
 * Human Rights Judge
 * , 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1599 (2006),. Specifically with reference to their thoughts on capital punishment.
 * Another article discussed "how military service may have influenced Justice Stevens's decision-making process." Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010). There is no shortage of decades of articles discussing the impact of military service on Supreme Court justices.
 * It even discussed
 * on legal blogs
 * AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an exercise in WP:SYNTH. I am sure you know that blog posts are not considered WP:RS for this purpose, and the sources that are not blog posts do not mention any significance to Ginsburg and O'Connor having had this status for a short period decades before their Supreme Court service, much less any linkage between them. Both articles already discuss in the "Early life" section the fact that these woman accompanied their husbands during the military service of the latter; additional reference to the subject is WP:UNDUE, absent a source indicating that they themselves found this experience to influence their jurisprudence. An identity can not be removed from someone if they do not actually have that sense of identity, and in order to say that they do we would need a source specifically stating that O'Connor (or Ginsburg) identified as a military spouse, and felt that it influenced their jurisprudence. BD2412  T 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see the statistic as historically significant. Seems like only two people in the world were military spouses and sat on SCOTUS. The jurisprudential effect adds some inferential significance ut the point is the uniqueness of the fact, which is obviously noteworthy. Traynreck (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Traynreck (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just thought of this as well. The military spouse and veteran identities both are under federal U.S. law, like race, age, disability, etc. Also makes this noteworthy and a demographic worth tracking. Traynreck (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And the SYNTH that the former commenter claims is not happening on the page, as the synth refers only to the justification behind the posting, not what Anubis actually posted, which is directly supported by more than one source. Traynreck (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Traynreck (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Striking edits of a blocked sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Her opinion/decent; where she touched on the “Evolving standards of decency is marked by a civilized society”.

was this (Roe V. Wade)??? 2601:47:4980:5B0:7D57:4879:8679:E94C (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)