Editing Sandra Day O'Connor (section)

====Commentary and analysis====
O'Connor's case-by-case approach routinely placed her in the center of the Court and drew both criticism and praise. ''[[Washington Post]]'' columnist [[Charles Krauthammer]], for example, described her as lacking a judicial philosophy and instead displaying "political positioning embedded in a social agenda."<ref>{{Cite news |title=Philosophy for a Judge |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070701898.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |first=Charles |last=Krauthammer |authorlink=Charles Krauthammer |access-date=November 18, 2005 |date=July 8, 2005 |archive-date=October 26, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051026043126/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070701898.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Conservative commentator [[Ramesh Ponnuru]] wrote that, even though O'Connor "has voted reasonably well", her tendency to issue very case-specific rulings "undermines the predictability of the law and aggrandizes the judicial role."<ref>{{Cite news|title=Sandra's Day|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/ponnuru200507011211.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050911141328/http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/ponnuru200507011211.asp|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 11, 2005|access-date=March 18, 2007|first=Ramesh|last=Ponnuru|authorlink=Ramesh Ponnuru|work=[[National Review]]|date=June 30, 2003}}</ref>

Law clerks serving the Court in 2000 speculated that the decision she reached in ''Bush v. Gore'' was based on a desire to appear fair, rather than on any legal rationale, pointing to a memo she sent out the night before the decision was issued that used entirely different logic to reach the same result. They also characterized her approach to cases as deciding on "gut feelings".<ref name="vanityfair.com"/>