Justice O’Connor resigns: blogospheric reaction

As I mentioned in my morning rundown, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has resigned:

WASHINGTON — Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O’Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court’s next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O’Connor.

The Blogosphere is beginning to react:

Althouse: “This is so much more significant than Chief Justice Rehnquist retiring, because replacing her vote will dramatically change the power balance on the Court.”

The Daily Kos: “Who will Bush appoint? I’m not one to speculate (I’m a chemist, not a lawyer), but I’d say it’s a safe bet that it’ll be someone conservative, to say the least.”

From SCOTUSBlog here’s her letter of resignation:

Dear President Bush:

This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.

Sincerely,

Sandra Day O’Connor

My wife’s reaction to the letter: “It reminded me of the letters of resignation that were sent in when I worked at McDonald’s. Did she write it on a napkin?”

Another observation from SCOTUSBlog: “The President certainly is not obligated to name a woman to succeed Justice O’Connor. He faces a number of competing pressures in that regard. Diversity in the Court may take a back seat, particularly given the prospect of a second nomination to replace the Chief Justice.”

Balkinization: “O’Connor was a key swing vote in dozens of cases over the past decade, in areas ranging from affirmative action to federalism to religion to abortion. Both liberals and conservatives understand that the occupant of her seat will have enormous influence over the direction of constitutional law in the near future– until further appointments are made– and possibly for many years to come.”

PoliPundit: “My choices to replace O’Connor are either Judge Janice Rogers Brown, or Judge Priscilla Owen. Both are sufficiently conservative, young, and female. And both were just confirmed by large margins by the US Senate. It would be very difficult for the “Gang of 14″ compromisers to filibuster either of them.”

Noah Millman of Gideon’s Blog has a characteristically gently wise assessment of Justice O’Connor:

“O’Connor was certainly not the worst Justice on this Court, by a long shot. Her style of judging – what’s called the common-law style, judging each case on its own merits and letting principles build up from the accumulation of precedent – has its virtues, prominent among them its modesty. The Court, if is follows such a method, is unlikely radically to overturn established practice, far more likely to guide it gently.

But this very virtue is also the characteristic vice of the style, this very modesty its characteristic arrogance. Nowhere is this clearer than in O’Connor’s voting-rights jurisprudence. O’Connor has held with precendent that it is permissable and even obligatory to draw Congressional districts with a conscious intent to increase the representation of racial minorities in Congress. But to do so too explicitly, and to create districts with no plausible connection to anything but race, she held, is to cross some unspecified equal-protection line. The practical result of her series of decisions is: to know whether your redistricting passes muster, you have to ask Justice O’Connor. O’Connor’s affirmative action jurisprudence is similarly opaque: it’s very hard to tell simply by looking at the facts of a program whether O’Connor will find it to traduce the Constitution or to be compatible with it. You just have to ask her.”

His comments on picks for her replacement are here.

Lawrence Solum of Legal Theory Blog has a substantial, thoughtful discussion of O’Connor’s importance to the Court.

Michelle Malkin has her own rundown of reactions.

Wizbang has an excellent rundown of media and blogospheric reaction.

Developing…