4.2.12 WC: 191694 idea” that the letter would be used politically. But that simply isn’t true, since the request to Justice O’ Connor—stating that it would be “beneficial” to have a letter from her as part of a Republican proposal to enact a Christian Nation resolution—made it clear that she was being asked to write her letter specifically for use in a political campaign. When I got wind of Justice O’Connor’s letter, I wrote a scathing op ed for the New York Times criticizing her judicial ethics as well as her miscitation of the law. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has again deplorably allowed her name and judicial office to be used for partisan political purposes. In 1987, she agreed to conduct a "private briefing" in the Supreme Court for Republicans who contributed at least $10,000 to a political-action group. She canceled it after leading ethics experts publicly criticized her actions as violating the Code of Judicial Conduct - but not until after her name had been used in the fund-raising solicitation. Justice O'Connor recently complied with a request from an arch-conservative Arizona Republican friend who had asked her to write a letter in support of a proposed party resolution declaring the United States to be "a Christian Nation . . . based on the absolute law of the Bible." I then described what she had done and the phony excuse she had offered in defense: that she “had no idea” her letter would be used politically. My op ed concluded: Not only was Justice O'Connor's letter used in that [political] campaign, its miscitation of cases was relied on in the resolution enacted by the Arizona Republican Party. That resolution begins, "Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has three holdings to the effect that this is a Christian nation . . . ." It then cites the decisions provided by Justice O'Connor and declares that we are "a Christian Nation," and that the Constitution created "a republic based upon the absolute laws of the Bible, not a democracy." Justic