Allegations of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Providing Political Letters to Republican Groups

4.2.12 WC: 191694 idea” that the letter would be used politically. But that simply isn’t true, since the request to Justice O’ Connor—stating that it would be “beneficial” to have a letter from her as part of a Republican proposal to enact a Christian Nation resolution—made it clear that she was being asked to write her letter specifically for use in a political campaign. When I got wind of Justice O’Connor’s letter, I wrote a scathing op ed for the New York Times criticizing her judicial ethics as well as her miscitation of the law. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has again deplorably allowed her name and judicial office to be used for partisan political purposes. In 1987, she agreed to conduct a "private briefing" in the Supreme Court for Republicans who contributed at least $10,000 to a political-action group. She canceled it after leading ethics experts publicly criticized her actions as violating the Code of Judicial Conduct - but not until after her name had been used in the fund-raising solicitation. Justice O'Connor recently complied with a request from an arch-conservative Arizona Republican friend who had asked her to write a letter in support of a proposed party resolution declaring the United States to be "a Christian Nation . . . based on the absolute law of the Bible." I then described what she had done and the phony excuse she had offered in defense: that she “had no idea” her letter would be used politically. My op ed concluded: Not only was Justice O'Connor's letter used in that [political] campaign, its miscitation of cases was relied on in the resolution enacted by the Arizona Republican Party. That resolution begins, "Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has three holdings to the effect that this is a Christian nation . . . ." It then cites the decisions provided by Justice O'Connor and declares that we are "a Christian Nation," and that the Constitution created "a republic based upon the absolute laws of the Bible, not a democracy." Justice O'Connor has twice given aid and comfort to partisan Republican causes. Both times her regrets came too late and only after public criticism. She has twice allowed her name and judicial office to be used improperly. She has twice violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which unambiguously directs sitting judges to refrain from political activity, including "making speeches for a political organization" and participating in political fund raising. A seat on the Supreme Court does not exempt a Justice from complying with the rules of the profession. Justice O'Connor must remember that her allegiances are no longer to a particular wing of the Arizona Republican Party but to all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, region or religion. I was told by several law clerks that after my op ed appeared, she was deeply embarrassed by what she had done and has not repeated the errors of her way during her subsequent years of service on the Court. 309 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017396