Politics & Government

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Speaks to a Packed House at Elmhurst College

O'Connor, who made history as the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, said money and influence threaten this country's judicial system.

Posted by Karen Chadra (Editor)

Money and political influence have no place in the U.S. judicial system. But in these times of heavy political partisanship, this critical third branch of government is being eroded, especially at the state level, said former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the packed Hammerschmidt Chapel at Elmhurst College Thursday night. 

"I think our judiciary has always been held in pretty high regard … around the world," she said. "The Constitution and political community have worked together to continue to maintain independence and impartiality. (The judicial system) is a product of our Constitutional history, our legal system and individual judicial ethics." 

But today, we have a "serious problem," she said. 

"There are many who think of judges as politicians in robes," she said. "And in some states, perhaps that's what they are." 

The Constitution of the United States provides that judges are to be appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress—not elected by popular vote. They serve for life and they cannot have their pay cut, so there is no worry that an unpopular decision will get them fired or demoted. That is still how it works today at the Federal level. But at the state level, often judges are elected. 

"I don't think that's the way to maintain judicial independence," she said. 

Furthermore, the public doesn't even see the need for independent judges, she said. 

"They prefer judges that act as a reflex of popular will," she said. "I believe that is wrong, and it's dangerous. There is nothing more sacred in American political tradition than judicial independence."  

She said the only way to maintain judicial independence is if politicians and the community understand that the measure of a great judge is not how often one might agree with him or her, but how fairly the judge approaches the case at hand.  

She cited several cases where judges failed to recuse themselves even though there were clear conflicts of interest. Money and favor, which has become the cornerstone of political elections, is now seeping into the judicial system as judges conduct full-blown re-election campaigns. 

"Elections have become big business in many parts of our country," she said. "Every judicial race brings a flood of money from partisan groups. From 2000 to 2009, fund-raising in state supreme courts was $207 million." 

How can a judge remain impartial when their campaigns often are funded by special-interest groups? Often, they cannot, she said. And, faith in even the most scrupulous judges is eroded if states use an election system to seat them. 

"I would like to see the states move in the direction of the federal judicial system," she said. 

But that's only part of the problem. There should be an "ethos of judicial independence," she said. 

"Judges must follow the rule of law as it is, rather than how they think it should be, or how the public thinks it should be. It makes for some very unpopular people," she said. "Judges are constantly disappointing at least half of the people, because someone has to lose." 

The rule of law often requires judges to rule the opposite of what the public wants, and the public has to learn to appreciate them for that—not attack every judge who issues a decision with which they may not agree, she said. Judges do make mistakes, but discussion around judges today is more and more political, she said. 

"They are celebrated or chastised for their position on issues, rather than for their judicial temperament," she said. "They should be celebrated according to their judicial acumen." 

The solution lies in education. 

"Children, voters, policymakers and lawyers should be taught about the importance of a fair and impartial judiciary … who must sometimes do the opposite of what the public wants," she said. "To do this, we have to bring real civics education back to the classroom. We really are not doing that job in all of our states." 

She cited a public policy institute statistic that two-thirds of Americans can name at least one of the judges on "American Idol," but only 15 percent can name the chief justice of the United States. Seventy-five percent of Americans don't know the difference between a judge and a legislator. Only one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government. 

"We learn about politics from television ads," she said. "Our nation's schools are failing to educate our very diverse population to become responsible citizens. We need to have basic knowledge to maintain our democratic system of government." 

These days,  American history, government and civics are "banished from the curriculum" in many schools, she said. 

"It's up to us. It's terribly important to remind legislators that we must get some help here." 

O'Connor is doing her part. She created a website, www.iCivics.org, with fun civics lessons and games for students. More than 5 million games have been played on the site, and it has been well-received by educators. But there is much more work to be done. 

"Impartiality of the judicial system is one of this country's biggest assets," she said. "We need to work to make our system one we can be very proud of." 

O'Connor, 83, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1981, and she served until 2005. Her many notable rulings included the "hanging chad" case of Bush v Gore, regarding the Florida recount in 2000, which determined the presidential election. 


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here