Sandra Day O'Connor

Answer

Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't a member of the US Supreme Court when Roe v. Wade, (1973) was heard; President Reagan appointed her to the Court in 1981.

Any discussion of Roe v. Wade requires mentioning Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's plurality/majority opinion from Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791 U.S.Pa., 1992. This may come as a surprise to most, but Roe v. Wade does not reflect the current state of the law regarding abortion. What someone else may tell you notwithstanding, Roe is little more than an easily remembered symbol. The US Supreme Court has decided many abortion cases since Roe, some of which significantly affected Roe. Of those cases, Casey had the greatest affect. Casey actually modified Roe in the following ways:

The idea that the right elucidated in Roe emanated from the Constitution was affirmed, but not enthusiastically. Instead, Justice O'Connor stated that the judicial doctrine of stare decisis required reaffirmation of Roe's essential holding; that a woman's right to choose an abortion before the fetus becomes viable overrides the state's opposing interest in protecting a potential life.

The bright line trimester approach of Roe was rejected due to the fact that the state of medical science is not static. [Casey reduced the legal age of viability from 24 to 22 weeks.] In its place, Justice O'Connor specified that if the state regulation did not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose an abortion, the law would not be struck down. In other words, before a state law regulating an abortion procedure would be struck down as unconstitutional, it would have to impose a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

Since Casey, the US Supreme Court weakened Roeeven further when it refused to find the 2003 ban on the so called "partial-birth abortion" unconstitutional. Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 127 S.Ct 1610 U.S., 2007. Before Gonzales, it was generally accepted that any regulation that prohibits an abortion procedure after the fetus has become viable will be deemed unconstitutional unless it contains an exception to protect the life or the health of the mother. By refusing to find the 2003 ban on "partial-birth abortion" unconstitutional, the majority in Gonzales rejected the necessity of requiring any post viability prohibition of an abortion procedure contain an exception for the life or the health of the mother.

Answer

The Supreme Court hasn't always convened a new Term on the first Monday in October; the opening day has changed over the years in order to lengthen the annual Term as their caseload expanded. The Supreme Court originally met for two terms per year; the first beginning on the first Monday in February, and the second beginning the first Monday in August. Congress reduced the requirement to a single Term, commencing on the first Monday of February, when it passed the Judiciary Act of 1802.

The opening date of the Supreme Court Term gradually advanced over the years to allow justices time to complete their growing docket of cases. The final change was written by Justice James C. McReynolds in 1917 accommodate the growing influx of appellate cases.

Explanation

The Judiciary Act of 1789 originally set the calendar for two Terms, one beginning on the first Monday in February, and the second beginning the first Monday in August. The dates were chosen because they marked the beginning of a new quarter, and provided the best travel conditions for the justices, who were also responsible for traveling the country "riding circuit."

Due to a political power struggle between the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans, the Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 immediately before the newly elected Democratic-Republicans took office, in order retain control over the Judicial branch of government. The Act expanded the number of District and Circuit Courts, relieving the justices of their circuit riding responsibilities, reducing the number of Supreme Court justices by one (by attrition), and changing the date of the Terms to spring and fall.

When the Democratic-Republicans took office in March 1801, just a few months after the Judiciary Act of 1801 passed, they repealed the act, resetting the Terms to February and August. The next year, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, which reduced the number of Supreme Court Terms to one, beginning the first Monday in February of each year (due to the timing of this legislation, the Supreme Court didn't meet at all in 1802).

The opening date of the Supreme Court Term gradually advanced over the years to allow justices time to complete their growing docket of cases.

1803............First Monday in February

1826............Second Monday in January

1844............First Monday in December

1873............Second Monday in October

1917............First Monday in October

The Judicial Code of 1911 abolished the old Circuit Court system, and allowed the Supreme Court to set its own Terms. The final change, from the second Monday in October to the first Monday in October was written by Justice James C. McReynolds, and was the final scheduling adjustment to accommodate the growing influx of appellate cases.

In 1925, Congress passed a judiciary act that allowed the US Supreme Court discretion over the appellate cases it chose to hear (with the exception of a few mandatory classes that have slowly been eliminated). The Court now controls the docket by limiting the number of cases to which it grants certiorari, allowing them to retain their traditional first Monday in October opening day.

For more information about the Court's schedule, see Related Questions, below.