ROAMING GOALPOSTS

TO THE EDITOR:

As a longtime admirer of Linda Greenhouse, I nevertheless object to the widespread yet editorially biased term "centrist" when referring to retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ("In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right," July 1, 2007).

Just look at the two most important decisions of O'Connor's career, defining moments when her judgment affected not just law but all aspects of American life. The first was Bush v. Gore in 2000, when O'Connor voted as part of a 5-4 majority to stop counting votes in Florida -- votes that would have given that state's electoral votes, and the Presidency, to Al Gore. Even staunch Republicans, like Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, now publicly regret the events that flowed from that vote. (By this measure, even Justice Kennedy no longer qualifies as a "swing" or "centrist" vote, since he voted for Bush as well.)

O'Connor's second overwhelmingly conservative decision came when she retired during the summer of 2006. At the time, this was rumored to be a "personal" decision, based on a family illness. And yet O'Connor sat on the Iraq Study group under James Baker III, served as chancellor of the College of William and Mary, and remained living in the Washington DC metropolis. Her decision to retire BEFORE Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death led directly to the right-leaning court we have today, and yet her decision to step down was completely voluntary -- nothing and nobody "forced" her off the court.

How can anyone responsible for such decisions be called a "centrist"?

--TR