It seems worlds away from the confirmation process that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor underwent almost four decades ago. We should reembrace the principles of that time, when iconic figures such as O’Connor and President Ronald Reagan, who appointed her, set shining examples of civil behavior even amid hotly contested debate.
The Left vs. Right politicization of Supreme Court nominations began when the Senate examined a later Reagan nominee, Judge Robert Bork. Bork was mercilessly grilled for five days in 1987 by a group led by Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his nomination was ultimately defeated. It was such a watershed event that it even added a new word to the English lexicon. To “bork,” according to Merriam-Webster, means “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.”
Similar to Reagan, O’Connor was always unfailingly civil in her dealings with allies and adversaries alike. And during her nomination process, the first to be televised in its entirety, the senators questioning her also maintained a high level of civility. Her nomination did not go through without tough questions about her stances on different issues. But as former Senate historian Don Ritchie said, “She presented herself extremely well in the hearings. The kind of animosities we have at Supreme Court nominations today were not present at that time. People disagreed with her on things, but there was not that kind of visceral reaction that you get today.”
It’s sad that we live in a time when highly qualified candidates of great character, such as O’Connor, might think twice before agreeing to serve on the Supreme Court simply because they would not want to put themselves and their families through an openly political, hate-filled nomination process.
On the bench, at both state court and federal appeals court levels before ascending to the highest court in the land, O’Connor was universally regarded as tough but fair. Lawyers going up before her knew they had to be prepared but also knew they would be treated with respect and civility.
Reagan was also well known for his civility. Because he didn’t stoop to mean-spirited invective (and also because of his keen sense of humor) even political adversaries who passionately disagreed with him on policy issues often could not help but like him personally. This was one of Reagan’s many strengths. It played a vital role in some of his most significant policy achievements.
Today, political leaders and average Americans alike could learn much from Reagan and O’Connor. It sometimes seems that politics has become a blood sport, with warring parties refusing to budge from entrenched policy positions and dismissing compromise as weakness. Reagan and O’Connor proved that just the opposite is true. Their ability to find common ground, seek practical solutions, and always treat colleagues with respect and civility, regardless of their beliefs, was a fundamental underpinning of their history-making careers.
It’s fine to disagree, even vehemently, on issues of policy. But it’s not fine to let those disagreements degenerate into vicious, personal attacks. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. It’s time for all of us to remember the legacies of O’Connor and Reagan and, as they did, commit ourselves to upholding an impeccable standard of civility in our personal and professional lives.
John Heubusch is the executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, and the author of the best-selling novels The Shroud Conspiracy and The Second Coming.
