Judge O’Connor’s Bravura Stirs a Throb in Conservative Hearts

Just getting through it without mishap was impressive enough: the’ , first woman Supreme Court nomi-, nee, a relatively obscure mid-level, state judge, sitting alone at the witness table in a packed hearing room in Washington, answering questions on live television, everyone waiting for her to flinch. Of Supreme Court nominees, however, more than that is expected. To those conservatives who wondered News Analysis • whether Sandra D. O’Connor was a conservative with the heart of a liberal, last week’s confirmation hearings should be reassuring. To the extent that she would talk about her personal views on issues, she talked conservatively. She favors the death penalty. She is openminded on preventive detention. She, opposes “forced busing.” She thinks the federal courts have overpowered the states and she finds abortion “abhorrent,” though not sufficiently abhorrent to please the National’ Right to Life Committee. To those concerned about how well a short-tenured state judge understood federal law, she was dazzling, offering the Senate Judiciary Committee a two-day cram course in recent Supreme Court rulings. Reporters waiting for her to get one wrong, or at least provide the wrong citation, are still waiting. Her performance as a politician was masterful. She knew each senator’s pet project on the committee and could congratulate them on network television for their “fine work” in seeking solutions to the crime problem or the problem of caseload backlogs in the federal courts.