It should come as no surprise to anybody that a Justice whose body of work was based on personal preference rather than philosophical and ideological rigor would have no legacy to speak of. How can her jurisprudence survive when it's entirely based on her whim? There are no standards to build on, no cohesion. What is there to follow? This should be the greatest lesson to future Justices: You can choose to either be the most powerful judge right now, or a judge that compels long-term change. And if you want the latter, treat the law as more than just a series of cases. Is there any doubt that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Stevens will have their opinions (even dissents) analyzed for decades to come? Chief Justice Rehnquist realized that the law has a long life, and crafted his dissents so that they may someday become majorities. O'Connor's opinions are all majorities that will soon become mere antiques, distinguishable on the facts if necessary, or discarded outright. Why lament this?

...Since Ms. O'Conner chose to side with those who refused to allow the votes to be fully counted in Florida in 2000, and thus installing the idiot king...

...It seems only fair she suffer the fate of all the rest of us in agonizingly witnessing the dismantellling of 230 years of hard won freedoms, advancements, and civil liberties.

...By a 5-4 decision (with Justice O'connor in the majority) she insured her replacement on the court, chosen by Cheney, would certainly be with the equivelent of legal hacks.

Nothing O'Connor did had "230 years" of anything behind it. Indeed, that is precisely why her jurisprudence is crumbling. And to call Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito "legal hacks" is to basically betray a complete ignorance of law. Both were distinguished jurists before joining the Court.

How is "ideological rigor" any less a personal whim than seeking to reach "justice" (ie common-law judge)?

Sure you get more fans (from your narrow ideological consituency) but once that ideology falls from favor it is no more "rigorous" than the Common-Law approach (and arguably less so).

My prediction is that this court will be a "one step back" court - and if we get a DNC whitehouse in 2008 with a 12 year run, Kennedy and Scalia, both now 71 - are highly likely to retire before the end of that term. Now they may likely hang on 'til after the 2012 election, hoping to get a GOP win. But once that goes, their odds of staying on are slim. Remember that Stevens at 85 is now the 3rd oldest serving justice and by 2012, Scalia and Kennedy would both be 76. They might try to hang on until post 80, but the workload would likely start to take its toll.

Brier and Stevens would likely step down shortly after a DNC victory in 2008 (Brier for health reasons, Stevens 'cuz he's 85). And even if Stevens were to die tomorrow, the current Senate would not confirm a Bush appointee in the next session.

So there is a non-trivial chance that this ideological hegemony could be over within 5 years. Now 5 years is a meaningful period, but not that dramatic.

An consider what happens to the court when one POTUS gets to appoint almost 1/2 the court - the outcomes have invariably been fairly significant ideological course changes. And if that someone is Obama, or HRC...

degsme: "How is 'ideological rigor' any less a personal whim than seeking to reach 'justice' (ie common-law judge)?"

Excellent question. Here's the answer: Ideological rigor uses a consistent basis for determining future opinions, while personal whim attaches to nothing -- it provides no basis with which to decide future cases.

I'm also skeptical that even a 12-year run of Democrats in the White House will necessarily solve your problems with the current Court. Keep in mind that Democrat presidents have appointed only two Justices in the past 40 years. You'd think that 40 years would be enough to swamp the Court with Scalias, but it's not as easy as you think.