A Tribute

January 1, 1996

ITEM DETAILS

Type: Law review article
Author: Daniel M. Mandil
Source: Ann. Surv. Am. L. xxxix
Citation: 1996 Ann. Surv. Am. L. xxxix (1996)
Date is approximate: Yes
1996AnnSurvAmLxi__10.png

DISCLAIMER: This text has been transcribed automatically and may contain substantial inaccuracies due to the limitations of automatic transcription technology. This transcript is intended only to make the content of this document more easily discoverable and searchable. If you would like to quote the exact text of this document in any piece of work or research, please view the original using the link above and gather your quote directly from the source. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not warrant, represent, or guarantee in any way that the text below is accurate.

A TRIBUTE

In the spring of 1989, 1 turned 33 and planned to marry in late summer. That same spring, Sandra Day O’Connor turned 59. Soon to be a first-time grandmother, she was still recovering from breast cancer therapies of the previous fall and winter. At various moments during those springtime months, both of us must have had thoughts about parenting, about children, about our futures and about the fragility of our lives. I recall having had such thoughts the day the Justice took her clerks for a stroll around the Tidal Basin to admire the cherry blossoms in all their fleeting beauty. Maybe similar thoughts were on her mind. We were probably also thinking about parents, children and fragility in a more immediate way that afternoon. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services1 was set for oral argument on April 26. The Justice’s vote was almost certainly going to be the crucial fifth. On the Saturday morning before oral argument, we clerks would gather with the Justice to preview the arguments. Traditionally, these Saturday meetings took place in Chambers. That October Term we often met at the Justice’s home in deference to her health. Fragility was in the air. In fact, with respect to Webster, it pervaded the Court and especially her Chambers. Justices, clerks and Court watchers all recognized that Webster offered the Court an opportunity to revisit Roe. Continued protection of the right at the core of Roe-“the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability

© COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This Media Coverage / Article constitutes copyrighted material. The excerpt above is provided here for research purposes only under the terms of fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107). To view the complete original, please visit Lib.asu.edu