Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide a critical analysis of Justice O'Connor's affirmative action opinions. It will show that while her early record provides justification for all three characterizations, her more recent decisions suggest the emergency of a more favorable image. Her opinions in Croson and Media Broadcasting reflect the realization that a narrow, hair-splitting approach to this critical social and constitutional crisis will do little to hasten its resolution; that there is apparently no form of affirmative action that the liberal wing of the Court is unwilling to endorse, making her consensus by compromise approach a futile dream; and that, thus, there is no further reason to mask her true commitment to the principle of non-discrimination.
The article will further show that her opinions reflect certain analytical models and philosophical premises on which a coherent affirmative action jurisprudence can be based; that when fully worked out and articulated, these models and premises mandate a forthright repudiation of everything except the truly remedial forms of affirmative action; that this is the position she will ultimately take; and that around her will eventually form a new and consistent majority on the affirmative action issue.
Recommended Citation
Haggard, Thomas R.
(1991)
"Mugwump, Mediator, Machiavellian, or Majority? The Role of Justice O'Connor in the Affirmative Action Cases,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 24:
Iss.
1, Article 4.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol24/iss1/4
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons