As the first female Supreme Court Justice and the first female state majority leader, Justice O’Connor’s story has inspired many journalists, authors, cartoonists, and groups to celebrate her experience. This catalog explores the media coverage she received throughout her career.
WASHINGTON – Moral Majority, the con- :lervative lobbying group, said Wednesday it bas :Jiot softened its position on Judge Sandra -O’Connor and that it still has “substantive ..concerns” about her nomination to the Supreme o.urt. : Cal Thomas, vice president of the organi7.lltion, ~ed a statement reasserting Moral Majority’s ppsition after reports that it was falling into line behind President Reagan’s selection of Judge Pi’Connor for the high court. r, ~eanwbile, two religious journals criticized P..resident Reagan for conferring with Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell about the nominatio~. t Falwell, of Lynchburg, Va., has said Reagan 1elephoned him and talked for almost an hour on the day Judge O’Connor was announced as ~an’s choice. The fundamentalist preacher has • ked the president to let him question Judge O’Connor about her views on feminism and ~rtion . ~Y such concessions on Reagan’s part would be ~ e height of irresponsibility,” said Spurgeon Dunnam III, editor of the Dallas-based Tezas Methodist-United Methodist Reporter, a national publication serving the 9.6 million-member United Methodist Church and churches of other denominations. “I’m bothered, personally, by the type of religious folks Mr. Reagan tends to liaten to,” Dunnam wrote in this week’s edition. “Mr. Falwell epitomw.es a very narrow, legalistic and not always Christian. from my understanding of the Scriptures, point of view.” Dr. Presnall Wood, editor of the Baptist Standard, the Dallas-based voice
“The legislature is a political arena where you’re always out in the open getting shot at,” says House Majority Leader Burton Barr. “She’s better suited to the judicial area where things are more relaxed and more scholarly. That’s a snug fit for her.” Few people leave the legislature when they’re m the position of majority leader. O’Connor did in 1974 to run for a seat on the Maricopa County Superior Court. She quickly developed a reputation for being tough on attorneys – some say the way she could “dress down” an unprepared barrister was masterful and devastating. It was in that setting that she solidified a judicial temperament that has been lauded by the president: she believes in interpreting the law, not making it. While conservatives were spreading the word that O’Connor had been “tough on criminals” in her trial court days, liberals were noting her major mark was one of fairness. Arizona courts are notorious for making political rulings. They’re the last chance to keep a controversial issue off the ballot or an unpopular politician from a recall move. They’re a last chance that is often used. So when a controversial initiative challenging the safety of nuclear power was ready to go on the b~ot, a contingent of heavy-duty movers and shakers went into Judge O’Connor’s court to squash the effort. Observers note she had plenty of opportunity to follow the political winds and find a loophole to keep the issue from a public vote. She didn’t. One “fan” of her trial court days
WASHINGTON (AP) – With a personal hand from Attorney General William French Smith and optimistic predictions from Senate leaders, Sandra Day O’Connor yesterday began a personal campaign to assure her confirmation as the first female Supreme Court justice. O’Connor met for four hours with Smith and other Justice Department officials and then moved on to Capitol Hill for meetings with more than a dozen influential members of the House and Senate. Among them were Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A great number of senators have expressed support, some publicly, some privately,” Baker said. “None has expressed opposition.” Later in the week, the Arizona appeals court judge is to meet with conservative senators including Jesse Helms, R-N.C., , ‘ . who have questioned O’Connor s views on legalized abortion. But Baker played down the importance of the issue in the confirmation process, which he said should be over before the Supreme Court begin~ i~ Octobe~ session. “I am convinced this 1s not an issue that should be significant in considering her confirmation,” Baker said. Thurmond, meanwhile, predicted easy confirmation by the Senate, although he advised O’Connor there were some potential votes against her. “She is a very impressive lady, a very intelligent lady,” Thurmond said after a half-hour meeting in his Senate office. “I told her there was some opposition to her.” O’Connor later met with Baker and
The Phoenix City Council passed a resolution Tuesday urging the confirmation of Arizona Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court . Copies of the resolution were sent to Senate leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on the nomination. Council members said Judge O’Connor’s work as a staff member of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Appeals Court qualify her for the appointment .
Sandra Day O’Connor made up the list of her lifetime accomplishments last week; a resume to satisfy the hunger for information on this first woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her list was one page long. More of her life – both professional and personal – was left off the list than put on. To understand this historic woman, you have to know some of the things that weren’t on that list. Things like … A REPUBLICAN DARLING BECOMES A POLITICAL HOT POTATO
While some blasted O’Connor’s lukewarm support for ERA, feminists looked at her stance and forgave her. The first woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t even get a Credit card in her own name in Arizona just eight years ago. As far as Arizona laws were concerned, Sandra Day O’Connor was just a “Mrs.” in 1973 – not the majority leader of the Arizona Senate; not the highly-honored law graduate of Stanford; not the former assistant attorney general. When she married her law school classmate. John Jay O’Connor III, she simply became a Mrs. who couldn’t hold title to her own property, ouy her own car or have her own credit without her husband’s name and approval. Sandra O’Connor helped change those laws; as a member of the highest court in the nation, she will spend the rest of her career changing or upholding the laws of the country. As a jurist, she is expected to be a “strict constructionist” who will bring to the high court the same qualities she showed in the county and appeals courts of Arizona:
LYNCHBURG, Va. – The conservative lobbying group Moral Majority eased back Tuesday from its attack on President Reagan’s nomination of Sandra O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Spokesman Cal Thomas said that although the group remains concerned about Judge O’Connor’s record on the Arizona Appeals Court, “We think the potential is there for the Moral Majority to support Judge O’Connor pending further information.” But Thomas, the organization’s vice president for communications, said the Moral Majority is “not on the verge of supporting Judge O’Connor.” “We want to support the president,” he said. “We’re desirous of seeing a woman on the court . We think it’s long overdue. Let’s not rush to judgment . • “We are still awaiting further information about her abortion position and, pending the reception of that information, we are withholding judgment either pro or con.” Ronald Godwin, vice president and chief operations officer for the Moral Majority, said Tuesday his group’s position remains unchanged. “We still have grave doubts and ‘ reservations,’ ‘ he said. Thomas said he hopes Judge O’Connor will express her views on abortion in talks with Senate leaders. “Some of our friends in the Senate , conservative members, will be asking questions of Judge O’Connor that bad concerned us and will be communicating her answers to the public and, of course, to us as well,” he said. Last week, Thomas called the nomination “a mistake” and said the Moral Majority would oppose it, basing the decision
Sandra Day O’Connor sat down between Senators Howard H. Baker Jr. and Robert C. Byrd this afternoon and immediately scored a political point.
“Senator Byrd,” Judge O’Connor said, addressing the minority leader, a man who considers himself an authority on the Senate, “tell me a little about the history of this great institution.”
Senator Baker, the majority leader, broke into laughter, saying, “Judge, you don’t know what you’ve just asked!” Senator Byrd just smiled. Then he congratulated Judge O’Connor, not on her nomination to the Supreme Court but on her confirmation by the Senate, “which I feel will be forthcoming.”
The Courtesy Ritual
In her first afternoon on Capitol Hill, Judge O’Connor, who if confirmed would be the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, proved herself particularly adept at a peculiar Washington ritual: the courtesy call.
This is the custom that requires nominees of the executive and judicial branches to travel to Capitol Hill to woo members of the legislative branch, particularly those who sit on pertinent committees. It is a time for smiles and handshakes, not for substantive discussions.
“It’s going just fine, thank you,” Judge O’Connor, of the Arizona Court of Appeals, said as she breezed down a Capitol hallway this afternoon, her heels clicking on the marble floor. On her right was William French Smith, the Attorney General. On her left was Senator Baker.
Also accompanied by a mob of photographers and reporters, Judge O’Connor visited, among
With the nomination of Judge Sandra O’Connor to the Supreme Court , controversy has arisen from those objecting to abortion . Whether a woman can handle the job. or will be a “proper “‘ representative , also has been floating around the atmosphere of some conservatives . O’Connor is the first woman ever nominated for a position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. thus you can see the reasoning for doubt – tradition. Evidently the reason President Ronald Reagan chose her wasn’t because she was a woman, but because she was the best qualified for the position . Conside ring she is from Arizona expands the spotlight of att ention in this state ‘s press. But, what do the people from Arizona think ? Was it a wise choice for Reagan to nominate her? We asked some-westside people their opinions. and the reaction was completely positive Joan Hogue : ” I think it’ s wonderful. rm glad to see a woman have a chance to get in.”
Josett Dobbs: “I think it’s good.”
Mike O’Keefe: ” I think it’s good to have a woman representative on t he Supre me Court. Women can make decisions just as well as men.”
Tina Engel: ” I think it’s OK, as long as she’s qualified. There’s nothing wrong wit h a woman being appointed.” Jules Ketcham : ” Well. I’ m not rea l qualified – issues I heard her opinions about make me favor her .” Russe ll Par ker: ” l think it”s great. Sure. there’s nothing wrong with a woman being in there.”
Legislators are predicting easy sailing for nominee New York Tim es WASHINGTON – Sandra O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice to sit on the Supreme Court, sat between Sens. Howard Baker and Robert Byrd on Tuesday afternoon and immediately scored a political point. “Senator Byrd,” Judge O’Connor said, addressing the minority leader, a man who considers himself an authority on the Senate, “tell me a little about the history of this great institution.” Baker, the majority leader, broke into laughter, saying, “Judge, you don’t know what you’ve just asked!” Byrd just smiled. Then he congratu – lated Judge O’Connor, not on her nomination to the Supreme Court but on her confirmation by the Senate, “which I feel will be forthcoming.” . In her first afternoon on Capitol Hill, “‘ Judge O’Connor, who if confirmed would be the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, proved particularly adept at a peculiar Washington ritual: the courtesy call. This is the custom that requires nominees of the executive and judicial branches to travel to Capitol Hill to woo members of the legislative branch, particularly those who sit on pertinent committees. It is a time for smiles and handshakes, not for substantive discussions.
“It’s going just fine, thank you,” said Judge O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals as she breezed down a Capitol hallway, her heels clicking on the marble floor. On her right was William French Smith, the attorney general. On her left was Baker.
Accompanied by a mob of
The tough, powerful, male leader of the Arizona House was telling the tough, powerful, female leader of the Arizona Senate how they were going to push a bill through that night in 1973, no matter how long it took. “No we aren’t,” Sandra Day O’Connor told Burton Barr, a man who doesn’t hear “no” very often.” My boys are going to camp tomorrow and I’m going home to be sure they’ve packed everything.”
When that kind of thing happened at the Arizona Legislature under its first and only female leader, Barr would muse, “Sandra is human. This brilliant thing that moves around is human.”
A lot of people were asking themselves last week if O’Connor – who had chalked up a half dozen “firsts” before President Reagan made her the first woman ever considered for the U.S. Supreme Court – was human.
Reporters from the country’s largest newspapers made frantic calls to Phoenix the day of the announcement, compiling reams on her public record, but asking in plaintive voices, “but what about O’Connor as a PERSON?” Their stories the next day showed they didn’t find much.
It’s not because there’s nothing to find.
“Sandra O’Connor once told me that people have to focus on what they want in life and go after that,” an old friend said the night of her appointment.” If you spread yourself too thin, she says, you won’t accomplish much of anything. She believes if you focus, you can have what you want. I guess she’s right.” Many feel Sandra O’Connor, a privileged Arizona cowgirl who can still ride
WASHING TON – Hoping to head off any serious opposition to her Supreme Court nomination from conservatives, the White House has arranged for Sandra D. O’Connor to meet with several key senators, including Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C. President Reagan’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was scheduled to arrive in Washington late Monday. Among others , the Arizona appeals court judge will meet with Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee; various members of the judiciary panel; Helms, a conservative Republican leader in the Senate, and Sen. John East, R-N.C., a leader among abortion opponents. Judge O’Connor planned to visit the Justice Department Tuesday for a meeting with Atty. Gen. William French Smith. Later, she was to be escorted by Arizona Sens. Barry Goldwater, a Re• publican, and Democrat Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat, to Capitol Hill, where talks were planned with Baker and Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd. Sources said there was a tentative plan for Judge O’Connor to meet the steering committee, a group of about 20 conservative senators including Helms and Thurmond, to persuade the members that her views on abortion and other social issues are in line with their own. The fundamentalist Moral Majority and various anti-abortion organizations have expressed militant opposition to Judge O’Connor’s nomination because they believe she supports legalized abortions and
WASHINGTON – Judge Sandra O’Connor went directly to the White House on Monday after arriving in Washington for a series of crucial meetings on her nomination to become the first woman on the Supreme Court. Judge O’Connor was met at Washington National Airport by Attorney General William French Smith and driven to the White House. A spokesman called the Monday gathering a “preliminary, get-to-know-you” session. It involved Smith and members of the president’s congressional liaison staff. She was to begin a round of meetings with Justice Department officials and key members of the Senate this morning and will meet with the president Wednesday. Judge O’Connor, a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, has been attacked for her record on abortion and for support of the Equal Rights Amendment. But Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. – her leading backer – issued a statement Monday that lauded the 51- year-old judge for having the “basic conservative philosophy” needed on the high court. Judge O’Connor told reporters at the airport that she hopes to end the controversy surrounding her selection. As she has in the past, the judge declined to discuss the substance I of questions raised about her nomination. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said that after the morning meeting today, Judge O’Connor will go to Capitol Hill to confer with her home-state senators – Goldwater and Democrat Dennis DeConcini. In his statement Monday, Goldwater said she is tough on criminals, a strong defender of
A president’s overriding responsibility in selecting a nominee for the United States Supreme Court is to choose someone whose talent, temperament and experience most qualify for service on the nation’s highest court. Measured against this demanding criteria, President Reagan’s choice of Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor can be called meritorious, perhaps even distinguished. That the judge is also a woman, the first nominated in the 191-year history of the United States Supreme Court, lends Mr. Reagan’s choice a historical significant that is as momentous as it is obvious. By all accounts, Judge O’Connor has compiled an excepti?nally fine record in a succession of iegal and iudicial posts: assistant state attorney general, superior court judge, and, most recently, a member of Arizona’s second highest court. Her written opinions, described by colleagues as lucid and brilliantly reasoned, reportedly reflect Mr. Reagan’s philosophical preference for judicial decisions that interpret the law rather than make it. Judge O’Connor’s academic background is every bit as solid as her subsequent achievements. In 1952, she graduated from Stanford law school along with William H. Rehnquist, now among the Supreme Court’s most respected justice. The one obvious gap in Judge O’Connor’s qualifications is her lack of experience at the federal court level. But this need hardly be a significant drawback for a nominee possessing so many other worthy attributes. In Judge O’Connor’s case,
PHOENIX (AP) – Sandra O’Connor, the first woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, has the firm support of 26 Arizona legislators who have consistently voted for a constitutional convention in behall of a Right-to-Life amendment banning abortions. Several stand ready to go to Washington to testify for her. Rep. Pete Corpstein, R-Paradise Valley, said Monday that letters in her behall have been sent to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman J. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C.; Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Jesse Helms, R-N .C. “We’re doing this to lay to rest some of the unfounded rumors and innuendos about her stand on abortion,” Corpstein said. O’Connor has been attacked by national Right-to-Life and moral majority leaders for her voting record on abortion in the Arizona Senate, in which she served as majority leader in 1973-74. “I wish hall the people in the moral majority had hall the morality and christianity of O’Connor,” Corpstein said. Rep. Donna Carlson West, a Mesa Republican and leader of the anti-abortion and anti-Equal Rights Amendment movements in Arizona, also gave her unqualified support to O’Connor. “I’ve had a number of calls from around the country from people who claim she’s anti-religion, pro-gun control, proabortion and was keynote speaker at the International Women’s Conference,” said Carlson West. “None of that is true.”
The comparison between Ronald Reagan, coalition builder, and FDR, made in this space many times, may be in need of review. . With its handling of the Sandra O’Connor affair, the White House bas given every indication it does not understand, or does not care, about nurturing the coalition Reagan put together over a dozen years, which put him in the White House. • UJl ‘ White House aides – not for attribution, of course – are using the identical mocking terms to describe the alienated conservatives that the press used about them until around Nov. 4, 1980. Have they forgotten why Ronald Reagan – not George Bush – was nomina~ and elected? As Barry Goldwater demonstrated in that impossible Republican year, 1964, the party nomination is worth , automatically, 40 percent of the national vote. The key to the White House is to fmd the formula for adding the crucial 10 percent – the decisive swing vote – without jeopardizing the Republican-conservative base . After some years of experimentation, Reagan mastered the formula, brilliantly, and astonished this politically purblind city with the magnitude of his triumph. They still don’t quite comprehend what happened. Stated simply, the formula was to weld to his new economic conservatism a touch of nationalism (Panama Canal) and social traditionalism which provides him with political reach into Democratic precincts of the South and the Northern cities, among folks who voted for John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and who have, historically, distrusted
WASHING TON – The nation’s capital is giving Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra D. O’Connor red carpet treatment usually reserved for visiting dignitaries. What was supposed to be a routine round of meetings to smooth her confirmation process as a Supreme Court justice turned into a roadshow of phot.ographers, reporters, government employees and tourists trying to get a glimpse of the Phoenix woman. Wearing a lavender suit and smiling broadly, Judge O’Connor seemed t.o be enjoying the attention. MOST OF Judge O’Connor’s morning was spent in conference with Attorney General William French Smith and his assistants. Judge O’Connor and Smith met privately for an hour. Afterwards, the att.omey general told reporters there no problems are likely when the Senate considers her confirmation. , Smith speculated her confirmation vote may be unanimous. Judge O’Connor waa applauded by bystanders when she entered and left the Justice Department. AMONG THOSE at the morning meeting was Robert O’Connell, a former Phoenix attorney who now is assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. He and Judge O’Connor are longtime friends. Also at the session with Smith were White House lawyer Fred Fielding and Powell Moore, Reagan’s legislative assistant for Senate affairs. At the White House, some critics representing a group called March for Life demonstrated outside. PROTESTERS carried signs saying, “O’Connor – a person for all liberals,” “Va. says no to ‘0,’” and, “Mr. President, your staff
BOSTON- You might have called it an eye-opening week. First President Reagan. a man notoriously myopic toward women, actually found one to nominate for the Supreme Court. Sandra O’Connor was not only a woman, he said, she was a •µerson for all ~ea~ons.” Then we watched as controversy over this person brewed between the extreme right and the merely right. ‘l’o see Barry Goldwater representing the moderate middle was enough to clarify anyone’s vision. The coalition of groups alternately labeled “pro-family” or “moral majority” disapproves of Sandra O’Connor. They maintain that her voting record as majority leader in the Arizona Senate was not pure enough to pass the test of the Republican Party Platform. That platform, you may recall, demanded judges who “respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” But anti -abortion groups, t.he Moral Majority, fnc., and others criticized O’Connor as suspiciously pro-abortion and.pro-ERA. This attitude was enough to put Goldwater’s famous jaw out of joint. “I’m getting a little tired of people in this country raising hell because they don’t happen to subscribe to every thought that person has,” he said. “You could offer the Lord’s name for some of these positions and you’d find some of these outfits objecting … ” In any case, it was quite a stroke for Reagan, in the midst of all the budget cuts, to find an appointment criticized as too “liberal.” Meanwhile, O’Connor’s real record turned out to be about as middle-ofthe-
“I am extremely happy and honored to have been nominated by President Reagan for a position on the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, I will do my best to serve the Court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the President, to my family and to all the people of this great nation.” -Sandra O’Connor Rumor and sketchy reports had already traveled from Washington to Phoenix. Electricity and excitement had begun to build. Law clerks _and fellow jurists clutching legal documents and research materials joined newsmen in a first floor courtroom of Phoenix’s State Capitol building. The already-crowded room spilled with people into an adjacent hallway, the clerk’s office and outside lobby as the press conference began. Court of Appeals Judge Sandra D. O’Connor, dressed conservatively in a blue dress, walked nervously to the platform . Behind her followed her family and John Rousell, deputy press secretary for the president. O’Connor stood at the podium in front of an elevated bench bearing her name. As she read her brief prepared remarks, each word was punctuated by the strobe flashes and staccato shutter release of news cameras. Her husband, Phoenix attorney John J. O’Connor III, and their three sons accompanied her to the brief July 7 morning news conference in the Court of Appeals courtroom. The judge, who was applauded warmly upon completion of her opening remarks, said she was greatly honored to be nominated to the Supreme Court, but “never thought it would
You might have called it an eyeopening week. First President Reagan, a man notoriously myopic toward women, actually found one to nominate for the Supreme Court . Sandra O’Connor was not only a woman, he said, she was a “person for all seasons.” Then we watched as controversy over this person brewed between the extreme right and the merely right. To see Barry Goldwater representing the moderate middle was enough to clarify anyone’s vision. The coalition of groups alternately labeled “pro-family” or “moral majority” disapproves of Sandra O’Connor. They maintain that her voting record as majority leader in the Arizona Senate was not pure enough to pass the test of the Republican Party Platform. That platform, you may recall, deiwmded judges who “respect traditio11al family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” But antiH)lt . . ” …. abortion groups, the Moral Majority Inc., and others criticized Judge O’Connor as suspiciously pro-abortion and pro-ERA. This attitude was enough to put Goldwater’s famous jaw out of joint. “I’m getting a little tired of people in this country raising hell because they don’t happen to subscribe to every thought that person has,” he said. “You could offer the Lord’s name for some of these positions and you’d fmd some of these outfits objecting ,, In any case, it was quite a stroke for Reagan, in the midst of all the budget cuts, to find an appointment criticized as too “liberal.” Meanwhile, Judge O’Connor’s real record turned out to be about
WASlllNGTON (AP)-Sandra D. O’Connor, still silent on abortion and other substantive questions, is courting the nation’s political leaders In hopes of defusing any opposition to her Supreme Court nomination. ‘lbe 51-year-old Arizona appeals court judge, whose past stances on abortion and women’s rights have come under fire from conservative groups, was scheduled to meet with several key senators on Capitol Hill this afternoon, after a morning visit with Attorney General William French Smith at the Justice Department.
After their meeting, O’Connor and Smith spoke briefly to reporters. “We’re In planning my schedule for the week,” she said, adding, “It’s a great pleasure to have the opportwrity to meet with so many members of the Senate.” O’Connor was asked about the issue of abortion. She acknowledged that it was a “sensitive area,” but declined further comment. Smith said, “We don’t anticipate there should be any problem at all” with O’Connor’s confirmation. He said controversial issues, such as abortion, will be addressed “in due course.” After meeting reporters, Smith said, O’Connor was to be introduced to senior staff members of the Justice Department. Then, accompanied by the attorney general, she was to begin her courtesy calls on Capitol Hill. “I’ve tried to be candid and will continue to try to be so” in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that now may be delayed until september, O’Connor said Monday at an airport news conference arranged by White Hous aides. “I
Strange, euphoric days have de- ‘ scended upon the Executive Tower at the State Capitol. The halls of the Arizona Court of Appeals buzz with excitement and incredulity. One of theirs is now the center of attention of the nation’s press, Senate, White House, religious groups and judiciary. Sandra Day O’Connor, presiding judge of the Appeals Court’s Department C, is the focal point of the excitement . Two weeks ago, O’Connor’s name suddenly appeared as a leading prospect for the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Potter Stewart, a veteran of 23 years on that bench, officially announced his retirement. Then, on July 7, President Reagan announced to the nation in a televised speech that he had selected O’Connor as the first woman nominee for the high court in the 191 years of the court’s existence, thus keeping the promise he made during his campaign last year. The selection process itself is one of interesting perspectives. The White House kept the selection process cloaked in secrecy, right down to the location where candidates were to be interviewed to prevent the press from interrupting proceedings. The Justice Department and administration officials began their search when Stewart informed the White House he was retiring in March, even though those officials were not aware that the vacancy was imminent. Stewart asked the White House not to announce his decision until mid-June. He made the announcement June 18. The secret location, still unrevealed, was used on the
“I don’t buy this idea that a justice of the Supreme Court has to stand for this, that or the other thing. And I’m getting a little tired of people in this country raising hell because they don’t happen to subscribe to every thought that person has.” SEN BARRY GOLDWATER — “I’ve known Judge O’Connor for many, many years, having worked with her professionally as far back as 1965 before she was in the state senate and on the bench ‘ . . . She is conservative and I think she meets all the criteria the president has had in mind.” SEN DENNIS DECONCINI — “I am confident that Sandra O’Connor will distinguish herself as a member of the Supreme Court. President Reagan is to be congratulated for making an outstanding selection. Her judicial temperment, knowledge of the law and her willingness to work long and hard are the perfect blend of qualities for a member of the Supreme Court. She will serve America well.” GOV. BRUCE BABBITT — ”President Reagan has selected the best person for the job. Judge O’Connor will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. She has established a distinguished record of public and community service in Arizona. Our country will be fortunate to have the benefit of her knowledge and integrity in service on the Supreme Court.” ‘ MAYOR MARGARET HANCE
WASHINGTON (UPI) – Judge Sandra O’Connor went directly to the White House Monday upon arriving in Washington for a series of crucial meetings on her nomination to become the first woman on the Supreme Court. O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice to fill the first high court vacancy in six years, was met at National Airport in late afternoon by Attorney General William French Smith and driven to the White House. A White House spokesman called the Monday gathering a “preliminary, get-to-know-you” session. It involved Smith and members of the president’s congressional liaison staff charged with shepherding her nomination through the Senate. Judge O’Connor was to begin a round of meetings with Justice Department officials and key members of the Senate this morning and meet with the president on Wednesday. O’Connor, a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, has been attacked for her record on abortion and for supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. But Sen. Barry Goldwater – her leading backer – issued a statement Monday lauding the 51-year-old judge for having the “basic conservative philosophy” . needed on the high court. She told a brief airport news conference she hopes to lay to rest controversy generated by her selection during her visits with Senate leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will pass judgment on her nomination. “I am advised this is customary for a nominee to the court,” she said shortly after arriving from her home in Phoenix. O’Connor said
WASHINGTON – The ruckus touched off between the Reagan White House and the new right by the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor is a tempest in a teapot. Even so, it’s a sign of tensions that could play a key role in the politics of the early 1980s. There will be no great fight. Mrs. O’Connor embodies all of the Republican virtues – affluence, tennis, the presidency of the Junior League of Phoenix, a husband who belongs to the World Affairs Council of Phoenix and serves as president of the Phoenix-Scottsdale United Way. Judge O’Connor herself is also a former ma• jority leader of the Arizona Senate. Democrats have breathed a sigh of relief: The Reagan revolution does not extend to the Supreme Court. The new right is angry, though, predicating its anger on Mrs. O’Connor’s alleged softness on the abortion and Equal Rights Amendment issues. Tactically at least, they have a point. Although the New Right doesn’t have a prayer of defeating Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, she is so clearly not one of them, so clearly an establishment Republican, that if they don’t skirmish on the nomination, they signal weakness – and they are too skilled a group of politicians to do that. So what they will do is “Mau-Mau” the issue: Yell a lot, make a lot of noise, shake their fists, brandish a few weapons, but not mount a knockdown fight. This Mau-Mauing should make clear to the administration that the new right feels aggrieved, and that new and additional
Goldwater’s blunt defense of O’Connor nomination draws line By JJllia Malone Staff correspondent of The Christian Science :lonitor Washington He has been called “Mr. Conservative.” “You may remember some of the things Barry Goldwater said in his [1964 presidential[ campaign honest, true, blunt things,” writes New Right strategist Richard A. Viguerie, who credited the Arizona Hepub lican senator with giving “vitality” to conservatism. But now Senator Goldwater is hurling some of that “blunt” language at Mr. Viguerie’s New Right for its outcry against Judge Sandra Day O’Connor. President Reagan’s choice for the US Supreme Court. “A lot of foolish claptrap has been written and spoken” about Judge O’Connor. said Goldwater last week on the Senate floor. (Earlier he had said other things, not printable in this newspaper, about Moral Majority ‘s opposition to Judge O’Connor. an Arizonan.) The flap over Mr. Reagan’s nominee, the first woman ever designated for the Supreme Court and an apparent moderate on women’s rights and abortion, has brought out the cracks in the conservative coalition . While conservatives unite on cutting government spending, they divide on the importance of the “social issues” like abortion. In fact, there are several strains of conservatives. according to Herb B. Berkowitz. spokesman for the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that tries to span all of the groups on the right of the political spectrum Goldwater and columnist William F. Buckley Jr. re present the
JUDGE SANDRA DAY O’Connor of Arizona has become the first woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and every indication is that she will be confirmed with a minimum of trouble. However, there is potential trouble waiting for her when she actually arrives in Washington to join the court as a justice. It has to do with a centuries-old tradition of the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t make any difference, if she weren’t a woman; but she is, and it is likely that the male justices are fretting over what to do about it. Specifically, it’s this: When the justices of the Supreme Court meet to deliberate, no one else is allowed in the room. No one: no secretaries, no assistants, no clerks. This is how it has been down through the years, and this is how the justices like it. Actually, in an age when every underassistant press secretary has a flock of aides, it’s kind of nice that the Supreme Court justices like to do things all by themselves,- BUT THIS is where the problem comes in. Since there are no secretaries or assistants, any menial tasks that come up during deliberations have to be done by one or another of the justices. And, traditionally, the junior member of the court has been assigned to be the “gofer”-the person who has to do the annoying dirty work. It’s part of the fraternity atmosphere of the court. When you’re the new boy you do the menial work, and then when another spot opens up, you get to have the menial work done for you. It’s always been that way. Except now we are
PHOENIX – Resonding to early warning signs of op- . position to her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor headed for Washington, D.C., today and a meeting with such key senators as Jesse Helms, RN.C. Among others, the Arizona appeals court judge was to met with Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-8.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Senate leaders; various members of the judiciary panel, and Helms, a leader of Republican conservatives in the Senate.
“Arizona Judge Sandra O’Connor, Nominated for Supreme Court, Will Be First Woman Justice,” the headlines say, and my phone rings a little more these days. “Who is she, what is she like, and what does this mean for the court and for the political future of Ronald Reagan?” I’ll try to shed some light. I’m a lawyer and a fellow Arizonan, and while I’m not a close friend of the nominee, we are acquaintances. I know her through her reputation and her very successful career in public service and as a community leader. When people as politically diverse as Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, Ted Kennedy and I can all support a Supreme Court nominee, it’s got to be remarkable. But she will be opposed. The New Right, the Moral Majority and Phyllis Schlafly will go after her with a vengeance that is their particular trademark. Nevertheless, I expect Mrs O’Connor will, and ought to be, confirmed. To understand some of what I have to say, you must understand some basic things about the Arizona Republican Party. A moderate Republican friend of mine told me in Tucson not long ago that the party had split into two camps: conservative and very conservative. “The very conservative believe nothing should be done for the first time,” he said, “and the conservatives believe that a few things should be done for the first time, but not now.” The point of this is that Sandra O’Connor is a conservative Arizona Republican, but she is a sensible conservative, and in her career in the Arizona Legislature she
Media stalk the president’s pick for first lady of the brethren
The paparazzi have come to Phoenix and they’re sprawled both in and out of the waiting room at the Arizona Court of Appeals. ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek. Correspondents and photographers representing all the news-gathering biggies lean against the huge battery packs they’ve lugged from who knows where to Judge Sandra D. O’Connor’s offices. She’s today’s lead news item, having just made world history books as. the first woman nominated by a United States president to adjudicate from the Supreme Court’s bench. Late arrivals to this news crowd stand in the foyer of the state Capitol looking for vacant spots to prop their heavy strobes and mega-mikes. There’s a member of the ABC team whose blue and white shirt reads “ABC San Salvador Bureau.” A UPI photographer, who flew in from LA the day before, asks him if the shirt is for real. “Yep,” he says rather smugly. A cleaning woman does her best to polish the large glass panes at the west entrance, where the reporters and photographers are camped. Oh, some of the cameramen obligingly move out of her way, but a few “excuse roe’s” later and she figures it’s all too much trouble. She’s off to the other side of the foyer, where her work will be more efficient – until the press goes away. There’s idle banter among the camera crews, whose members recognize one another from former assignments they’ve handled together. They talk .about the heat, where the closest Mexican food restaurant
Gazette Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON – A review of the 29 published opinions of Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor , Supreme Court justice-designate, attests to her “exceptionally high professional qualifications,” Sen. Barry M. Goldwater, R-Ariz., said. Goldwater last week told the Senate he and his staff have studied the opinions the judge prepared, and said: “It is quite clear from reading her decisions that she is unusually thorough, reasoned, detailed and logical in her decision making. She takes careful account of all sides of an issue and always makes a pains – taking analysis of the case.”
GOLDWATER said that in his opinion, Judge O’Connor is “a strict constructionist both of case law and statutory interpretation.” “Throughout all her opinions, Judge O’Connor is fair,” the statement continued.” In a high number of cases, she ruled with little people fighting against big institutions, such as cases involving small citizens defending themselves against large corporations or governmental agencies.”
Goldwater said that in the furor over President Reagan’s appointment of Judge O’Connor to the Supreme Court her legal abilities have been overlooked. For the record, he cited some of her opinions. “TO BEGIN, I will call attention to the case of Fernandez v. United Acceptance Corp. Here Judge O’Connor made a finding that a citizen’s freedom of privacy had been invaded by the undue harassment of a creditor in attempting to collect a debt,” Goldwater
: Reflecting the thinking of most 19th-century American voters – almost all of whom were male – the supreme Court ruled in 1873 that Illinois had a perfect right to deny a lawyer’s license to a woman. ”Civil law, as well as nature lierself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of The man and woman,” Uafioft ~hree jus_ti?es held ff• m an opm1on that concurred with the majority decision by Justice Samuel Miller. “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender,” the opinion said. “The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood.” Now, 108 years and scores of lawsuits later, Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor, 51, is in line to become the first woman among the 101 people to reach the high bench. In announcing that he would nominate Judge O’Connor, President Reagan fulfilled a campaign pledge to name the first woman to the high court, and he won admiring applause from rival politicians for a masterful political stroke as well as a strong judicial choice. Although senators on both sides of the political fence, such as Arizona Democrat Dennis DeConcini and Republican Barry Goldwater, reacted favorably, Judge O’Connor
Phoenix, Ariz. Those who know her best are convinced sandra Day O’Connor is well suited to become a national symbol – the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. “None could have met that challenge better than she,” said Superior Judge Robert Broomfield, with whom O’Connor served as a trial judge for four years. Her colleagues and acquaintances use similar phrases in describing sandra Day O’Connor – the judge, lawyer, state legislator, civic activist, mother of three. Phrases like “stem but fair,” “dedicated perfectionist,” “highly organized” are some. Nominated by President Reagan last week as “a person for all seasons,” O’Connor would fill the vacancy created by Potter Stewart’s retirement. Senate confirmation of her unique place In the court’s 191-year history appears assured, despite opposition from antiabortion forces. But who Is this 51-year-old woman who was unknown on the national scene until two weeks ago? Ada Mae Day remembers her daughter sandra, the oldest of three children, as “an active child, very fast and willing to accept responsibility” on the family’s sprawling cattle ranch In southeast Arizona, hard by the New Mexico border. As a child, her mother recalls, Sandra liked both to read and to help the Lazy B’s ranch hands do some of their toughest chores . When she en tered her teens, Sandra returned to El Paso, Texas, her birthplace, to live with her maternal grandmother and attend the Radford School for girls, called a “f inishing school” back then . She
“This precedent-setting appointment … marks another welcome advance for equal treatment of women under the law. A final judgment on Mrs. O’Connor’s qualifications must await the Senate confirmation process. But it can already be said that in acting t.o end the male-only monopoly on the Supreme Court, President Reagan has achieved a longneeded first for America.” Buffalo Evening News “President Reagan has shown great courage and a sense of balance . The president refused t.o be bullied by the nation’s far right and pro-life groups who fear that Judge O’Connor will not bend the law in their direction. The president has made a wise choice in Sandra O’Connor. She appears t.o be well qualified and it is long past time for a woman to take a seat on the Supreme Court.” Fort Lauderdale News . “Mrs. O’Connor’s political beliefs are probably more conservative than we would like; after all, she is a Republican . But indications are that she is nuly a ‘class’ person who can handle the challenge. Her being the first woman nominated t.o the Supreme Court . , . – is historic, but more important than her sex is that she be qualified for the job. At this time, she surely appears to be.” Atlanta Constitution “President Reagan’s choice … fulfills Mr. Reagan’s campaign pledge t.o put a woma.n on the nation’s highest tribunal. Americans will hope that the appoint – ment represents something more and there is reason t.o believe it does. Judge O’Connor commands legal and judicial credentials that
Throughout the speculation that preceded President Reagan’s selection of Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court last week, the prediction most often heard was that, regardless of gender, Mr. Reagan was looking for “another Rehnquist.” Despite similarities in origins and education – both Judge O’Connor and Justice Rehnquist practiced law in Arizona and were classmates at Stanford law school – it is too early to tell if that is what the President has found. But there is little doubt as to what “another Rehnquist” means.
William H. Rehnquist is a symbol. People who have trouble naming all nine Supreme Court Justices quickly identify him as its doctrinaire, right-wing anchor, the very model of a Reagan appointment. In many respects, the image is not far off the mark. After nine and a half years, Justice Rehnquist is the Court’s most predictably conservative member, using his considerable intelligence, energy and verbal facility to shape the law to his vision of the proper relationship between the states and Washington, legislatures and judges, citizens and government. In one respect, however, the image is inaccurate. President Reagan said he wants Justices who “interpret” rather than “make” law. But as one of the Court’s creative users – some say abusers – of precedent, Justice Rehnquist has done more than his share of “law-making,” in the sense of leading the Court into new areas of doctrine.
Unlike Judge O’Connor, William Rehnquist was a known quantity at the moment President
The harsh criticism and rejection of Judge Sandra O’Connor as nominee t.o the Supreme Court by Rightt.o-Life leaders and the Moral Majority is pecksniffery at it.s worst. It is also unjust. Some of these Jacobins have become first-st.one throwers and are damaging the Right-to-Life movement. Peter Gemma, a leading Pro-Life politician, but not necessarily a prolife thinker, is absurd when he calls O’Connor “a hard-core pro-abortion proponent.” The Rev. Jerry Falwell, likewise, when he claims she “is opposed t.o attempt.s t.o curb the biological holocaust”. that has caused the death of 10 million babies since 1973. My pro-life reputation dates t.o 1973 when I wrote “The Abortion Culture” for Newsweek, so I take no back seat. I argued that the chore is t.o explain what a grisly matter abortion is, how it diminishes respect for human life, and can corrode a society. I always was against people crying “murder,” although I never opposed showing those telling, honest phot.os of the fetus. In the years since, the pro-life movement has grown and become strong. Inevitably, its leaders became obsessed with political power, highspeed computer mailings, “hit” list.s and a narrowness which could only please severe Calvinist.s, Madame Defarge or Menachem Begin. Like the cost-benefit-analysis martinet.s that they should scorn, some pro-life zealots pick over Judge. O’Connor’s “record” and condemn her. President Reagan says that he has discussed the abortion question with Judge O’Connor, and
WASHINGTON (AP) – Judge Sandra O’Connor, by President Reagan for a Supreme Court ,eat. bas suggested that Congress act to restrict the Dumber of federal civil rights suits against states and munidpallties. In an article in the summer 1981 issue of the William and Mary Law Review, O’Connor suggested that federal courts should defer to state courts in IOme cases on constitutional questions. She also noted “acute confrontations” between ltate and federal courts in some school busing cases and said tensions between the two judicial systems could increase in some areas. The 51-year-old Arizona appeals court judge wrote the article before Tuesday’s announcement of lier nomination to the Supreme Court, which must be confirmed by the senate. O’Connor’s nomination bas come under heavy attack from conservative and anti-abortion groups, for what they perceive to be ber stands on abortion and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment They argue that Reagan betrayed th em by lelecting O’Connor for the court. HOWEVER, her statements in the article re nect • conservattve theme shared by the president: the move to give states more freedom from the federal aovernment. “It is a step in the right direction to defer to the courts and give finality to their judgments on ral constitutional questions where a full and fair udication bas been given in the state court,” ‘Connor wrote in the article, titled “trends in the tionship Between the Federal and State Courts m the Perspective of a State Court Judge.”
Like supporters and detractors of her Supreme Court nomination, Sandra Day O’Connor devoted the better part of this week to a review of the state legislation and judicial decisions that constitute the record of much of her public life.
With her office at the Arizona Court of Appeals here overflowing with congratulatory bouquets, her desk cluttered with papers and files, and her law clerk, husband and friends helping with the review, Judge O’Connor looked up at a brief break yesterday morning to sigh, ”It’s a nightmare.”
”Fifty years is a long time,” she said, ”and it’s hard to remember everything you did.”
Differences of Temperament
The review is far from complete, but the woman, public and private, who has so far emerged from an examination of of those records, and from conversations with friends, colleagues and adversaries, is by political instinct, judicial philosophy, economic standing and personal temperament both similar to and different from the constituency that elected Ronald Reagan President.
Judge O’Connor emerges as a sometime conservative with a moderate, even progressive streak, a determined woman but not a dogmatic one. President Reagan described her as a ”person for all seasons,” but she appears to be something less than the advocate that other supporters, including many in the feminist movement, have made her out to be. At the same time she is clearly more complex than her detractors, including Moral Majority and the anti-abortion lobby, have suggested.
Some of the objections to Sandra O’Connor are about as relevant to her fitness for the Supreme Court as abortions are relevant to stadiums. The right-t~life movement seems to think that abortion is germane to everything, so it can’t understand why Judge O’Connor, when she was the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, opposed an anti-abortion rider to a football stadium bill because it seemed non-germane. We’d be troubled if she had seen a connection. But zealotry is not the only basis for raising questions about nominees for the Supreme Court. Their long-run philosophical positions are generally wholly unpredictable. Yet a President’s most lasting legacy may reside in the mind and manner of the Justices he appoints. The Senate has a duty to explore both responsibly. At first glance, her record is appealing. But much more needs to be known about her and about the depth and nature of her conservatism. How Judge O’Connor handles herself under questioning also will tell much about the quality of the President’s choice. The art of getting confirmed is openness where possible – and circumspection when the _ questions get too close to prejudging issues that may come before the Court. • Some questions arise from the uniqueness of the nomination; Judge O’Connor follows 101 male justices. Others arise from the simple fact that so little is known of her outside Arizona, where she gained prominence as an assistant state attorney general, legislator, judge and civic leader. What does
New York Times
Judge O’Connor was born Sandra Day on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas, but she spent her earliest years on her family’s 162,000-acre ranch, the Lazy B, which her grandfather founded a century ago near Duncan in southeastern Arizona.
Because there were no schools in Duncan that suited her parents, Harry and Ada Mae Day, as a young girl Judge O’Connor was sent to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso and attend school there.
She did well, graduating from high school at age 16. She then entered Stanford University, with which she has maintained a lifelong affiliation, most recently as a trustee.
At a time when most women at Stanford were majoring in education, Judge O’Connor won a bachelor’s degree in economics, awarded with great distinction, and a law degree. She obtained both in six years.
Her sophomore roommate, Marilyn Brown, remembers her as a “very shy” young woman who spoke with the soft accents of western Texas but who seemed more than equal to university life.
…
Although Judge O’Connor’s biography lists her as an Episcopalian, a
friend said neither she nor her husband are active churchgoers.
…
Henry Brandon reports on the row over the first woman member of America’s Supreme Court ‘Controversy over Sandra O’Connor is about abortion’
WHEN Barr y Goldwater , who considers himself one of the most conservative members of the Senate , angrily explained last week : ” I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass,” it was quite obvious that something had gone wrong in the kingdom of Republican conservatism. The Arizona senator was excoriating the leader of the extreme right-wing Moral Majority movement, Jerry Falwell because he had condemned President Reagan’s choice of Sandra Day O’Connor to fill a vacancy on the US supreme court . Mrs. O’Connor, a judge on the Arizona court of appeals, will become the first woman to serve on the court . Presidents like to make history and Reagan used this opportunity skilfully. He not only reassured the women’s movements that he is not the male chauvinist they think he is, but he also softened his image as a right-wing conservative by selecting a conservative with an open mind – as a friend of Mrs O’Connor described her-and not a doctrinaire ideologue.
It will not necessarily garner him a windfall of vote s among women , but as representative Morris Udall the liberal Democrat from Arizona , put ‘it : ” The fact that he appointed someone as moderate and as close to the centre of the Republican Party as she is, is really stunning. It erases stereotype opposition to Reagan .” It also created an unexpected opportunity for the
New York Times
Like supporters and detractors of her Supreme Courtnomination, Sandra O’Connor devoted the better part of last week to a review of the state legislation and judicial decisions that constitute the record of much of her public life. I With her office at the Arizona Court of Appeals overflowing with congratulatory bouquets, her desk cluttered with papers and files, and her law clerk, husband and friends helping with the review, Judge O’Connor looked up during a brief break Friday morning to say with a s1 igh, “It’s a nightmare.” “Fifty years is a long time,” she said, “and it’s hard to remember everything you did.” In addition to being a state appellate judge, Sandra O’Connor was, in no particular order, president of the local Heard Museum, a board member of the local Salvation Anny, a director of the Phoenix chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, a director of the local YMCA, a national vice president of the Soroptimist Club, a former trustee of Stanford University, a board member of the Arizona State University Law School and a lay member of the national accrediting body for medical schools. The review is far from complete, but the woman, public and private, who has so far emerged from an examination of those -records and from conversations with friends, colleagues and adversaries, is by political instinct, judicial philosophy, economic standing and personal temperament both similar to and different from the constituency that elected Ronald
Political Caucus Asked to End Its Support of Legislators Who Back Budget Cuts
By ADAM CLYMER
Special To The New York Times
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., July 11 – Leading officials of the Democratic Party today challenged the National Women’s Political Caucus, one of the country’s two largest feminist political groups, to stop supporting Republican women in Congress who vote for the Reagan Administration’s budget cuts.
Polly Baca Barragan, a Colorado State Senator who is vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Democrats in the caucus that they should push for a re-evaluation of the organization’s willingness to back such Republicans. ”Even the Congresswomen who were elected with feminist support,” she said, ”had to toe the party line and vote against the economic survival of the women of this country.”
In an interview, Kathy Wilson, a Republican from Alexandria, Va., who is slated to be elected the national chairman of the caucus tomorrow, said that Senator Baca Barragan’s approach would weaken both the caucus and the ability of Republican feminists to alter their party’s policy. ”I want my party back,” she declared.
Senator Baca Barragan’s demand brought into the open a critical tension within this influential group. Among feminist political organizations, the caucus’s 55,000 members place it second only to the National Organization for Women, which has 125,000 members, and its active Washington office and roster of experienced politicians in its membership
Feminine view on family law, bias
WASHINGTON – The first woman on the Supreme Court probably won’t sway many cases. But she will bring new perspectives to legal questions – especially in the areas of family law and discrimination. If Sandra O’Connor is confirmed and takes her seat on the bench this fall, she will face touchy legal issues ranging from what states must prove in order to remove neglected children from parents to whether the government may bar colleges from discriminating on the basis of sex. The court – composed of male lawyers, five of whom are 72 or older – has been criticized as lacking experience, understanding and compassion when it comes to sex discrimination in employment and other areas of society. Women’s groups say recent court rulings – particularly excluding females from draft registration, and probably the draft – are particularly harmful to women. More importantly, these groups charge, some of the justifications for the court rulings reflect hopelessly outdated views of woman’s place in society. They cite the ruling that allowed California to punish only males for having sexual relations with minors of the opposite sex, which the court said was justified by the state’s need to protect unwed women from pregnancy . Judge O’Connor has shown sensitivity to women’s rights – perhaps because despite graduating third in her class from Stanford Law School, her only job offer was as a legal secretary. At 51, she also will be the youngest justice. But her rulings
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., July 11 – Leading officials of the Democratic Party today challefW!d the National Women’s Political Caucus, one of the country’s two largest feminist political groups, to stop supporting Republican COngressWomen who YOte for the R .. gan Administration’s budget cuts. Polly Baca Barragan, an Arizona State Senator who Is vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Democ.rats In the caucus that they should push for a re-evaluation of the orgamzation’s willingness to back such Republicans. “Even the Congress.. women who were elected. with feminist support,” she91.ld, “bad to toe the party line and vote against the economic surYiftl of the women of this country.•’ In an interview, Kathy Wil9oll, a Republican from AJeundrta, Va., who Is slated to be elected the national chairman of the caucw. tomouow, 9atd that senator Baca Barnpn’s approach would weaken both the caucus and the ability of Republican feml.aists to alter their party’s policy. “I want my party back.” she declared. Senator Bec:a Banagan’s demand brought into the open a crttk:al temton within this influential group. Among feminist political cqanJzattons. the caucus’s 55,000 members place it second only to the Natione.l 0rpnizatkln for women, which has 125,000 members, and its acti-,e Wasblnglon office and ro&- ter of experienced polltlctam in its membership ha-,e made it important in the capital. Stralal Wltldn ea– For years the caucus bas bad a distinettve blpartilansbip, but that characteristi
That sound you hear, beneath the loud reveling at the president’s precedent-shattering nomination of a woman t.o the Supreme Court, is the cracking apart or Ronald Reagan’s Great Coalition. The White House boys have just made the most basic mistake you can make in politics: They have compromised the vital interests of the president’s most ardent followers, t.o score brownie points with their political enemies. A frivolous campaign promise has been kept, and a solemn written commitment violated. Political adultery. Eighteen months ago, in the Iowa caucuses, the Right-t.o-Life movement saved Ronald Reagan from a carefully prepared ambush by his now-vice president – a defeat which could have made Ronald Reagan a footnote in the hist.ory books. A month later, in New Hampshire, the Right to Lifers provided a significant share of that ast.onishing margin of vict.ory which gave candidate Reagan irresistible momentum through the early, conclusive primaries. In return, the movement asked Mr. Reagan for a surprisingly small return. Only that Reagan support their Human Life Amendment and its progeny; that his Supreme Court nominees – be they black, white, yellow, brown, red, male or female – share the president’s internalized belief that the unborn child has the God-given right t.o live. As politics goes, this was a simple, inexpensive bargain. The candidate would get the volunteer labors of thousands, the allegiance of millions, in return for remaining true t.o his stated convictions.
RONALD REAGAN did what he had to do and named a woman to the Supreme Court. From all accounts , Sandra Day O’Connor is a conservative who is respected by conservatives and liberals alike as an able judge, a thoughtful legal scholar and a clear writer. Her political background – she was the first and only woman to serve as majority leader in the Arizona state senate – could be an asset in a job where nine individuals must come to a consensus on a regular basis. That she is a mother of three means that she will bring a perspective to the job that differs significantly from that of the men who have preceded her. That she is a woman may change the dynamic of the current court in subtle, possibly even dramatic, ways. Although Reagan denied he was naming a woman merely to do so, he had no other choice politically . His record on women’s issues is weak, so weak that even conservative Republican women have criticized him pub- licly in recent weeks for failing to name siJnificant numbers of women to positions tn the administration. The absence of a woman from the Supreme Court bas symbolically and sometimes effectively disenfranchised the women of this country for the past two centuries. In recent years the high court has been criticized, and rightly so, as an institution with limited un- derstanding of women and their roles in the family and society. O’Connor, who was offered a job as a legal secretary after graduating third in her class from Stanford Law School, bas bad firsthand experience
“Honored and happy,” Sandra Day O’Connor was also silent and circumspect on questions of her judicial philosophy last week after President Reagan nominated her as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The 51-year-old Arizona state judge would be the first woman on the Court. Her interpretation of the Constitution, Judge O’Connor said, must await the Senate confirmation hearings now likely in September. This discreet silence, coupled with ambiguity In some aspects of her legislative and judicial biography, allowed for enough different interpretations to prompt qualified support from feminist groups while touching off connect within the President’s own conservative camp. Despite the dustup, however, early predictions had her taking former Justice Potter Stewart’s seat on the Court by the October term. A conservative Justice was what President Reagan wanted, particularly one who would exercise restraint and deference to the legislative branch In making law and shaping social policy. ( Justice Rehnquist, the Court’s resident conservative, page22.) “She’s establishment Republican,” said a leading Democratic politician, adding, however, that she was not “of the knee-jerk mold.” An Arizona Assistant Attorney General from 1965 through 1968, Judge O’Connor joined the state Senate in 1969 and became the first woman to serve as majority leader. She compiled a record of mainstream, conservative Republicanism that helped her win election as a Superior Court judge In 1975
FOR seasoned watchers of President Reagan, his mid-week speech in Chicago was a familiar scene gone slightly, and tellingly, awry. His trusty index cards had given way to a teleprompter. The crisp cadences of his off-the-cuff orations were replaced by long and harshly partisan sentences that visibly wearied both Mr. Reagan and his audience. Despite the last-minute effort by aides to correct a ”mistake” in the speech text, Mr. Reagan admitted that his appointment of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to the United States Supreme Court culminated a ”search for a highly qualified woman.”
Thus, with a phrase, Mr. Reagan contradicted the official White House position that selection of the nation’s first female justice had nothing to do with her sex. Mr. Reagan’s slip was an uncustomary admission of political reality, and in regard to such realities, this was a jolting week for the White House team. They face a short, hot July full of threats to Mr. Reagan’s popularity, to his effort to tone down his reputation as an ideologue while holding on to his conservative base, and to the remarkable legislative gains made so far in his term.
The O’Connor appointment brought unaccustomed praise from liberals and women’s groups, but it sparked an open revolt among some New Right and conservative Christian leaders. The White House gambled Mr. Reagan’s prestige in a Mississippi Congressional race and lost. Meanwhile, despite Administration efforts to downplay the ”social issues” on which Mr.
SENATE confirmation of Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court should not depend on whether, 10 years ago, she voted for or against a facet of the abortion issue. She was not acting in a judicial capacity back then, nor is the record clear as to whether one vote was triggered by opposition to a rider or by opposition to the main bill. In any event, Judge O’Connor reportedly told President Reagan that “she is personally opposed to abortion” and that it was especially abhorrent to her. What is important, in deciding whether the O’Connor nomination should be confirmed, is whether her Supreme Court decisions would be based on law. Judging from the record, they will be. Even the most extreme of the anti-abortion groups admits that Judge O’Connor is a strict constitutionalist who acts in accordance with the law and who believes, perhaps owing to her own legislative experience , that the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the law, not to make it. .Justices quite obviously need a wide and varied background, which is an excellent reason for not using a single issue to decide a person’s qualifications. The pro-life people, best exemplified by Rev. Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, have a tendency to focus on the single issue of abortion. It was this tendency that led Sen. Barry Goldwater, who said he had “supported right-to-life groups all the way down the line,” to tell a reporter that “every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass.” Such heated hyperbole
Sandra O’Connor’s record shows a mix of political sfaiids during the Biz years she spent as a member of the Arizona state senate, three of them as Republican majority leader. The records of the Arizona legislature disclose several occasions in which Mrs. O’Connor, President Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court, voted in favor of making aborticm more _!ftdely available. The Reagan Adminlstraticn moved swiftly to minimize the eJltellt of her support for abortion.
PHOENIX-Judge Sandra Day O’Connor smiled as a gaggle of repo rier s and photographers swarmed into her book-lined chambers at the Arizona Court of Appeals. It was a photo session arranged by a White House aide the day after President Reagan announced her selection as the first woman justice of the Supreme Court. The journalists were told in advance that she would answer no questions, but the questions came anyway. Was that jar of jellybeans on her desk a gift from the jellybean-loving President? No, she said with a smile, it came from “a close friend.” What about the complaints of ultraconservative groups about her record on abortion? She declined to answer and, although she still was smiling, her expression seemed to stiffen. The 51-year-oldjudge had gotten a brief taste of the sometimes painful process that traditionally follows the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Already, her views on legal and social issues, her judicial and legislative background, her personal life and personal finances are being subjected to intense scrutiny-by the FBI, the American Bar Assn., journalists and special-interest groups. It is a process that will continue through Senate confirmation hearings later this summer, but a tentative portrait of O’Connor can be drawn after several days of inquiries in this sunbaked desert metropolis . Those inquiries found that O’Connor is: -A jurist who in the last six years on the. state bench has handed out harsh sentences but l!_as also protected criminal
O’Connor Sets Visit to Senate Panelists
In an outing expected to help de• fuse pockets of opposition to her nomination to the Supreme Court, Arizona Court of Appeals Judge San• dra D. O’Connor will pay informal courtesy calls to President Reagan and Senate Judiciary Commitee members next week, administration spokesmen said yesterday. After Reagan nominated O’Connor , 51, on Tuesday to replace Justice Potter Stewart , the nomination has been generally well re ceived but has come under attack from some con- servative groups and abortion opponents. White House spokesman David Gergen said yesterday that O’Connor was asked by the White House office of legislative affairs to visit infor• mally with the senators after seemg Reagan on Monday. Both Gergen and Justid Depart• ment spokesman Thomas DeCair said they . expect O’Connor will be asked some substantive questions by senators about her record as a judge and as former majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. but that they do not expect any full-fledged inter – rogations of her before her confir• mation hearings. Senate Majority Howard Baker said he expects O’Connor to be “easily” confirmed despite the . vocal _opposition from the ant1-abortton groups and a “new right” coalition of 21 groups. Baker said he knows of no senators opposed to her nomma• hon . An Associated Press poll of 98 senators produced 33 already commit ted to supporting O’Connor, 20 ,leading toward sup_porting her and 45 undecided. An mformal poll of the Judiciary
WASHINGTON, July 10 – There was great change in the nation in 1873, when the men of the Supreme Court sat together and ruled on Bradwell v. Illinois. It was an era when the slaves had been freed, the frontier was retreating and women were fighting for the constitutional right to practice law, tinally reaching the highest court with their case. “God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action.” the ma- jority ruled. “It belongs to men to make, apply and execute the law.” Thus did Myra Bradwell suffer defeat and the State of Illinois enjoy vic- tory in its law banning women lawyers. If Myra Bradwell sought comfort in a separate opinion, she found none in the concurrence of Mr. Justice Bradley, who felt the majority’s language too weak. “Man is, or should be, woman’s p~ tector,” he said, finding that the “deli,, cacy which belongs to the fair sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” “This is the law of the Creator,” declared the man. Time has passed by Mr. Justice Bradley. But he is not forgotten by the successors of Myra Bradwell, particularly as they prepare for the coming Senate inquiry into the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman member of tfie Supreme Court. In the hours after Judge O’Connor’s nomination, this city’s phenomenal predilection for reducing eftnts to quick-fix, white-hot iSsues threatened to make her a mere adjunct to the endless abortion dispute, as more than a dozen anti-abortion lobbying groups found
Rep. Donna Carlson West, RMesa, a leader of Arizona’s pro-life and anti-ERA forces, has mounted a strong defense of Judge Sandra O’Connor against the attacks of right-wing groups. In a letter Friday to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, RTenn., the five- term lawmaker said she was “deeply distressed” at the anti-abortion and anti- ERA opposition to Mrs. O’Connor’s Supreme Court nomination, and insisted there was nothing on her record “that warrants the many unfounded, untrue charges that are being raised .” Mrs. West explained several of the votes cast by Mrs. O’Connor as a state senator from 1970-74 were being misinterpreted by her rightist foes. SHE ‘l’O~D the Phoen-ix G¥ette ……… — her conclusions were based on a recent conversation with Judge O’Connor, in which she sought to clear up the jurist’s positions on several issues. While the judge backed a resolution aimed at ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, she conceded, so did two other conservative Republicans – Trudy Camping and Bess Stinson, both of Phoenix – who later became ardent foes. “Since 1975, Sandra has been on the bench and has not spoken out for or against the ERA,” Mrs. West wrote Baker. Judge O’Connor’s legislative opposition to various anti-abortion proposals was often for other reasons, Mrs. West added. She voted against one measure to ban abortions at Tucson’s Univer!ity Hospital be- • cause it was not germane to the original bill, a..1d opposed a pro-life memorial to Congress because of her “general
public Wire Services WASHING TON – Barring major negative disclosures in the background of Sandra O’Connor, the Arizona judge appears headed for easy Senate confirmation as the first female Supreme Court justice, according to an Associated Press survey. Four days after her nomination was announced by President Reagan, 33 senators are committed to voting for Judge O’Connor, and an additional 20 are leaning toward supporting her when the nomination is considered, probably in September. Arizona’s senators, Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Dennis DeConcini, both support the nomination. The survey found no votes opposing her nomination. Forty-seven senators indicated that are undecided, saying they do not know enough about Judge O’Connor’s legal experience or constitutional views from initial reports about her career as a judge and state legislator. A majority vote of the 100-memher Senate is required for confirmation. Meanwhile, a White House spokesman said Friday that Reagan is aware of conservative opposition to Judge O’Connor and is “fully satisfied” with her views and record. In the face of rising opposition from abortion opponents to the appointment, David Gergen, White House communications director, said Reagan “had reassured himself again” of her views in a fmal telephone conversation before he offered her the post. Reagan interviewed Judge O’Connor in the Oval Office on July 1 and offered her the judicial post of retiring Justice Potter Stewart in a July 6 telephone
Rep. Donna Carlson West, R-Mesa, an ardent opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment and a pro-life advocate, threw her support Friday behind Judge Sandra O’Connor, a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, R-Tenn., Rep . Carlson W~t laid she was deeply distressed by opposition to the Arizona Court of Appeals judge’s historic nomination. “I have known Sandra for many years, as a member of the Legislature and member of the judiciary,” Mrs: Carlson West said, “and I am convinced that there is nothing in her record in either capacity that warrants the many unfounded, untrue charges that are being raised in opposition to her nomination as the first woman justice of the Supreme Court.” She conceded that Mrs. O’Connor and two other conservative women legislators had introduced a resolution to ratify the ERA in Arizona. But many legislators and states have changed their minds on ERA since Congress passed it in 1972, Rep. Carlson West said. On the abortion issue, Judge O’Connor cast couple of votes as a legislator with which R Carlson West said she disagreed, “but I do kno that she is personally opposed to abortion.” Rep. Carlson West, immediate past chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council. national organization of conservative legislator labeled as “untrue” allegations that Judge O’Connor is “pro-gun control, anti-religion and anti-capital punishment.”
When Mount Goldwater erupts, the fallout of hot ash ( and hot air) is usually spectacular. It is also, in a way, refreshing . The senior senator from Arizona, once the doyen of the American conserva,tive movenment , is a great fan of Mrs. Sandra D. O’Connor, President Reagan’s Supreme <:ourt nominee. As such he is outraged by the clamor of antiabortionist fundamentalists against her. So Senator Goldwater tells us not only that the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Moral Majority, the leader of that clamor, should be "kicked in the ass" by all right-thinking Christians (a not uninviting idea), but that abortion is a "humbug issue" distracting Congress from more manageable matters. The senator isn't likely to have many takers on the latter proposition, although there is some practical sense in what he says. The abortion issue is legislatively intractable, and the grating moralism of the "social conservative" right and its drive to theocratize politics are both tiresome and threatening. But one reason they seem threatening , as the distinguished novelist Walker Percy has observed, is that in their outrage over pro• miscuous abortion the Falwells and tfleir allies prick the bad conscience of American society. When abortions begin to balance live births in certain jurisdictions, the state of the law needs re-examination. It does not need and, in our view will not profit from, the superficial re-examination envisaged in the so-called "human life" bill reported this week by the Hatch subcommittee
Concerning Mr. Reagan’s choice for the Supreme Court, a few obser• vations : 1) To favor Mrs. O’Connor’s con• firmation is not the same as saying that there wasn’t a better qualified jurist around. But that much can said at almost any moment any president is called on to make a selection. Clearly Mr. Reagan’s thought was dominated by his anxiety to name a woman. While skeptical of the proposition that the Supreme Court should be sexually (or racially) representative, in fact the presence of a woman in the court serves two purposes. The first is to demonstrate that Mr. Reagan’s political promises are not mere campaign oratory. These~- ond is to demonstrate that a president who opposes the Equal Rig~ts Amendment is not for that reason insensitive to the desire of women to demonstrate that there are no political boundaries to their ascendancy. The Abortion Question 2) On the question of whether Mrs. O’Connor is for or against abortion, we are told by the president that she opposes abortion. Presumably_ he had this confidence from her, smce Mrs. O’Connor has hardly been volu• ble on the subject, one way or an• other. Her opponents point especially to her blocking, in 1973 in the Arizona legislature, a resolution that _was proposed as an appendag~ to a p1~ce of legislation, a resolution callmg for a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion. But Mrs. O’Connor pointed out that her opposition was procedural. Because under Arizona 1aw, nongermane resolutions are forbidden. She was
STANFORD, Calif. (UPI) – Stanford University officials said yester• day -that Sandra D. O’Connor , Presi• dent Reagan ‘s .choice for the Supreme Court, may not have been No. 3 in her law school class after all. When the name of the Arizona judge was first mentioned for the post last week, it was reported she ranked third in the Stanford Law School class of 19S2, the year Justice William Rehnquist ranked first. The school issued a press release dated July 7 that reiterated this information – “a clear error in editorial judgment on our part” because the information was not checked, Stanford News Service Director Robert Beyers said yesterday. Law School Dean Charles Meyers said he has “no notion” of the indi vidual rankings and that O’Connor told him she “never knew what her class standing was.” Beyers said all that is certain is that O’Connor was one of 10 from that class elected to the Order of Coif, which comprises the top 10 per• cent of the class . He said at least three people have claimed to have finished second in that class , and that Rehnquist does not claim first place listing in the bi ography he filed with the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON – A lobbyist Friday commended Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice for the Supreme Court, for what he said was an anti-gun-control record. Judge O’Connor is strongly opposed by the Moral Majority and anti-abortion groups. They believe her record favors abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment. But John M. Snyder, chief lobbyist for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said Judge O’Connor “so far looks pretty good.” “As a state senator,” Snyder said, “she signed a resolution opposing more federal gun control, and she also voted for a measure to make it easier for Arizona residents to obtain concealed-weapons permits. “This could be very important because there may be a case involving the Morton Grove, Ill., ban on handgun possession coming before the court within the next couple of years,” he said. Snyder refened to a Morton Grove City Council vote June 8 to make handgun possession and sales a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine and six months in jail.
President Reagan this week named Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra D. O’Connor to become the first woman justice in the 191 years of the Supreme Court. O’Connor, 51, a Paradise Valley resident, would fill the vacancy created by Justice Potter Stewart’s retirement. The nomination was saluted by the National Organization of Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. But opposition brewed among the far right. Some conservatives object to her support, as a state senator several years ago, for a measure legalizing abortion, and for another which would have submitted the Equal Rights Amendment to Arizona’s voters. Reagan said he was completely satisfied with Judge O’Connor’s record on right to life issues. Deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said she had told the president “she is personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.” Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, RTenn., joined with Sen. Barry M. Goldwater, RAriz., in defending O’Connor’s abortion record. Baker said she had never supported the concept of abortion on demand, and predicted the conservative attacks would not stand in the way of her confirmation. Goldwater, in a Senate speech, labeled the conservative criticism “a lot of foolish claptrap” from “people who do not know what they are talking about.”
Associated Press WASHINGTON Sandra O’Connor, chosen by President Reagan for a Supreme Court seat, is suggesting that Congress act to restrict the number of federal civilrights suits against states and municipalities. In an article in the Summer 1981 issue of the William and Mary Law Review, Judge O’Connor suggested that federal courts should defer to state courts in some cases on COD&titutional questions. She also noted “acute confron- , tions” between state and federal courts in some school-busing cases and said tensions between the two judicial systems could increase in some areas. The judge wrote the article before the announcement of her nomination. Judge O’Connor’s statements in the article reflect a conservative theme shared by the president: the move to give states more freedom from the federal government. “It is a step in the right direction .to defer to the state courts and give finality to their judgments on federal constitutional questions where a full and fair adjudication has been given in the state court,” Judge O’Connor wrote in the article, titled “Trends in the Relationship Between the Federal and State Courts from the Perspective of a State Court Judge.” She said thousands of lawsuits against state and municipal officials are being filed in federal court under an 1871 federal civil-rights law. “In view of the great caseload increase in the federal courts and the expressed desire of the Reagan administration to hold down the federal budget, one would think
Genesis II, the alumni quarterly issued by St. Ignatius College Preparatory School in San Fran<'isco, recently published a photograph of a self-assured 17-year-old with two classmates and asked if anyone could identify them. John Jay O'Connor III, Class of 47 and husband of the first woman nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court , knew at once. He was that 17-year-old. His classmates were Jim Fitzpatrick and Joe Boyd, and they were all members of the school's debating society at the time , the 51-year-old attorney wrote from his hume m Phoenix . Other classmates included the late Mayor George Moscone and attorney Charles Clifford, former president of the California Bar Association. "l have many wonderful memories of St. Ignatius and will always be deeply indebted to the faculty there for the superb educational experience they provided," O'Connor said in his letter. Word that O'Connor's wife, Sandra Day O'Connor, had been nominated by President Reagan for the nation's highest judicial office is also stirring memories of him among friends and classmates here of more than 30 years ago. O'Connor. who dated his future wife when they were students at Stanford and served as fellow editors of the Stanford Law Review. is a member of a distinguished San Francisco family. He was born in San Francisco on January 10, 1930. O'Connor's late father, Dr. John Jay O'Connor, was a member of the St. Francis Hospital board of trustees and previously a resident physician at the hospital before going
Aristophanes’ ashes must have erupted like Mt. St. Helens when President Reagan named a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some 411 years before Christ, Aristophanes was writing in “Lysistrata” that, “There is no animal more invincible than a woman, nor fire either, nor any wildcat so ruthless.” Images arise of Sandra Day O’Connor clawing at the eyes of Chief Justice Burger as he tries to impose some argum ent upon the rest of the Court. And Shakespeare’s bones must have beaten each other like castanets , muffling out even the strident protests of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. It was Shakespeare, after all, who wrote: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” Can’t you just see tears cascading down Mrs. O’Connor’s black robe as frailty prevents her from dealing with some absurd opinion by her old Stanford classmate, Justice William Rehnquist? Reagan Praised Whether he chose Mrs. O’Connor to keep a campaign promise, or because he has been catching unmitigated hell from Republican women who say he hasn’t given enough decent jobs to females, President Reagan deserves high praise for naming Mrs. O’Connor to the nation’s highest tribunal. After 191 years of wallowing in the inanities of Aristophanes and Shakespeare, and assorted chauvinisms in between, it is good to see Mr. Reagan respond to the principle that America’s commitment to justice is deepened when women sit on the Court. We go back and forth from the trifling to the vulgar in our assertions that women are “different” from men. It is time that
It was just the other day that I was invoking the 19th-century shade of Myra Bradwell, but with the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, the old story takes on an especially poignant meaning . From Mrs. Bradwell to Mrs. O’Connor, it’s been a long, uphill climb for ladies in the law. Myra Bradwell, may she rest in peace, was a native of Vermont who moved to Chicago sometime in the mid-1850s. Not long after ratification of the FourteEjnth Amendment in 1868, she did a most audacious, unfeminine thing: She applied for a license to practice law. Curiously, she did not rely upon the equal protection clause but rather upon the privileges and immunities clause, but in any event the Supreme Court of Illinois summarily turned her down. No women were to be allowed in court. Mrs. Bradwell appealed. In April 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court also gave her the brush-off. !t “‘.as wi~hi~ the police powers of Ilhn01s to hm1t membership in the bar to males only. Only Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dissented, and he didn’t say why. Justice Joseph P. Bradley was so shocked by the whole astonishing idea that he wrote a flaming concurring opinion in which two other justices joined. History, nature, the common law, and “the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial” argued against the proposition. Bradley felt impelled to expand upon the wide difference in the spheres and destinies of man and woman. “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity
I have to admit when Sandra O’Connor first was mentioned as a possible U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee, I was a bit skeptical. I had hoped President Reagan would nominate a qualified woman – and there are many – for the position. but I was concerned with Judge O’Connor’s limited ( 18 months> appellate court experience. Several factors have changed my concern to total acceptance. The first was learning more about her background and reputation. Second was the class she has shown before and since her nomination. Third was the praise heaped upon her by Arizona Appeals Court Judge Jack Ogg of Prescott, a man whom I and manv others in this state hold in high regard . The real clincher. however. came when it was announced that her nomination was opposed bv the KKKK. . Not to be confused with the Ku Klux Klan. this newer and more visible group is the Kneejerk ( K >nitpicking ( K >neandcrthal (KJnuts. ~onsisting of such a rightthmkers as the Moral Majority ‘s ~ev. Jerry_ Falwell (“Everything 1s a Satamc or Communist plot. send in the bucks.”> and Richard Viguerie of the National Conservative Political Action Committee (“Forget the truth. people will believe anything they see on television.”>. the new KKKK most likely would not be satisfied with any nominee less conservative than Atilla the Hun. . _Ju~ge O’Connor’s record. qual1f1cations and character are impeccable. That’s probably bothering them. what”s If you happen to be one of those folks who loves growth and congestion, hit your
Stanford University Law School administrators Thursday withdrew their claim that Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist ranked first and nominee Sandra O’Connor third in the school’s 1952 law class. The rankings were reported in a July 7 Stanford press release but cannot be documented, said Robert Beyers, director of Stanford’s public-information office.
Beyers said the release was based on a July 2 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, which quoted a Washington Post story.
“We failed to verify the information prior to issuing the release, and it’s all turned into a big can of worms,” a Stanford spokeswoman said. “We got burned.”
Judge O’Connor, an Arizona appellate judge who was nominated for the Supreme Court on Tuesday by President Reagan, told university officials Wednesday she never was informed by Stanford of her ranking and does not know what it was, Beyers said.
“The ranking did not come from anything release by Judge O’Connor,” said Nancy White, a spokeswoman in the judge’s Phoenix office.
“In fact, she was never even told what her ranking was and had nothing to do with the Stanford press release,” Ms. White told an Arizona Republic reporter Thursday.
Her law-school ranking is not listed on a biography Judge O’Connor released during a press conference in Phoenix on Tuesday.
The biography does list Judge O’Connor as a member of the Order of the Coif, a group restricted to the top 10 percent of law-school graduates.
Rehnquist, also an Arizonan, does not list
What impact will the appointment of Sandra O’Connor have on the Supreme Court? Asked in downtown Phoenix
Marty Bender, artist, Prescott. She’ll be a welcomed relief from all those other fuddy-duddies on the Supreme Court, that’s for sure. I think she’ll make a good justice. She said she’d interpret the laws, not make them and a woman’s opinion is needed on the Supreme Court. I don’t think that it’ll affect the passage of the ERA amendment one way or the other though.
Doug Jardine, written communications supervisor, Scottsdale. I would expect that Justice O’Connor would formulate her rulings on the basis of her profession rather than strictly as a woman. In fact, she might bend over backwards to show that being a woman won’t influence her decisions. Her appointment will benefit women and all Americans. Having a woman on the Supreme Court is long overdue.
Aletha Frazier, steno, Phoenix. Her appointment to the Supreme Court might open the eyes of the other justices to the fact that women are as capable as men. A woman’s opinion in a judicial situation is important and it’s time they realized that. I think she’ll help other women realize their potential too by showing them that they can hold responsible positions of authority. Bob Silverman, minerals company land man, Albuquerque, New Mexico. I don’t think there will be any great impact right away. Her views seem a little more liberal than the other Supreme Court justice from Arizona, William Rehnquist. I think Reagan’s appointment
WASHINGTON (AP) – Here are results of The Associated Press survey of the Senate on Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination as the first woman Supreme Court justice. Democrats for (13): _Cranston, Calif.; Deconcini, Ariz.; Dixo_n, Ill.; Hart, Colo.; Heflin, Ala.; Hollmgs, S.C.; Inouye, Hawaii; Long, La.; Matsunaga, Hawaii; Melcher M?nt.; Mo~nih~n, N. Y.; Riegle: Mich.; Stenms, Miss. Republicans for (20): Abdnor, S.D.; Baker, Tenn.; Cochran, Miss.; Domenici, N.M.; Duren – berger, Minn.; Goldwater, Ariz.; Gorton, Wash.; Hayakawa, Calif.; -La.xalt, Nev.; L~gar, Ind .; Maddingly, ,Ga.; Murkowsk1, Alaska; Packwood, -Ore.; Percy, Ill.; Simpson, Wyo.; Stafford, Vt.; Stevens, Alaska; Thurv mon~, S.C.; Wallop, Wyo.; Warner, a. Democrats leaning for (8): Biden, Del.; Bumpers, Ark.; Byrd, W.Va.; Eagleton, Mo.; Pell, R.I.; ~ryor, Ark.; Tsongas, Mass.; Wil- liams, N.J. Republicans leaning for (12): Andrews, N.D .; Chafee, R.I.; ~hen, Maine; Dole, Kan.; Hatch , Utah; Hatfield, Ore.; Heinz, Pa.; Kassebaum, Kan .; Quayle, Ind.; Schmitt, N.M.; Tower, Texas; Weicker, Conn. Democrats undecided (26): Baucus, Mont.; Bentsen, Texas; Boren, Okla.; Bradley, N.J.; Burdick, N.D.; Byrd, Va.; Cannon, Nev.; Chiles, Fla.; Dodd, Conn.; Exon, Neb.; Ford, Ky.; Glenn, Ohio; Huddleston, Ky.; Jackson, Wash.; John – ston, La.; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Metzenbaum ‘ Ohio; Mitchell, Maine; Nunn, Ga.; Proxmire, Wis.; Randolph, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Sasser, Tenn.; Zorinsky, Neb. Republicans undecided (19): Boschwitz,
Republic Wire Services W ASIDNGTON – Conservative groups intensified their attack on Supreme Court nominee Sandra O’Connor on Thursday despite Republican predictions of victory and Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., telling them to “back off.” Goldwater, Judge O’Connor’s leading supporter, declared in a Senate speech that “a lot of foolish claptrap” has been circulated about her positions OD issues. Though supporters of Judge O’Connor tried to shield her from criticism on the volatile abortion issue, a conservative coalition suggested that a cover-up of sorts may have colored the decision to pick her as the first woman on the high court. The coalition said that because of an “apparent cover-up,” the president did not find out about what it contends was Judge O’Connor’s vote in favor of abortions on demand and her support of the Equal Rights Amendment during her term as an Arizona state senator. The group claimed that a Justice Department memo by Kenneth Starr, counselor to Attomey General William French Smith, who led the search for a new Supreme Court justice, failed to acknowledge Judge O’Connor’s voting record. President Reagan is said to have relied heavily on that memo in choosing Judge O’Connor to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart. “The information we have on her abortion record, when compared with the memorandum … shows an apparent prima facie cover-up, either on the part of Mrs. O’Connor or on the part of the attorney general’s office, or both .. !’ charged Kathleen
WASHINGTON (AP) – Conservative groups trying to mount a political offensive against Sandra D. O’Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court are finding a fight and seeing no support in a Senate inclined to confirm her. At a Capitol Hill news conference backed by 21 conservative and anti-abortion organizations, a spokesman said Thursday that the Reagan administration may have “covered up” information about O’Connor’s alleged pro-abortion stance. They claimed that as a member of the Arizona Senate in 1970 she co-sponsored and voted in committee for a measure that would have legalized abortion on demand. The bill never was enacted. Within hours of the news conference, conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., took to the Senate floor to denounce criticism of the Arizona appeals court judge as “a lot of foolish claptrap.” Later, Goldwater stepped up his counterattack by accusing the Moral Majority and the National Right to Life Conunittee, two groups in the forefront of the battle against the nomination, of “taking more of a fascist line than a conservative line.” Howard Phillips, spokesman lor the groups and head of the Conservative Caucus, told reporters that the O’Connor non_lination was a “major blow” to the conservative bloc that helped elect Reagan last fall. “It can be expected that the O’Connor nomination could diminish the prospects for Republican gains in the House and Senate irl 1982,” he added. Phillips noted that several senators have expressed a desire not to be “railroaded”
BALTIMORE -Geography is destiny, as Freud said, or was that Rand & McNally? Anyway, everybody’s paying a lot of attention to the fact that President Reagan has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court and overlooking the fact that he has nominated an Arizonan, which is also significant. If she is confirmed, Sandra O’Connor will be only the eighth justice from west of the 100th meridian, which is where the West begins. Two of the others are still on the court – Rehnquist of Arizona and White of Colorado – so the contemporary court is a third Western, for the first time. Geography was an important criteria in selecting the early justices. George Washington picked half from the North and half from the South. From 1789 till 1932 there was a “New England seat.” There was a “New York seat” from 1806 till 1890. There was a “Maryland-Virginia seat” from 1789 until lhe Civil War. In this century, geography has been less honored. There have been some extreme imbalances. On the famous “nine old men” court that President Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked in 1937, three of the nine justices had been New York City lawyers, a fourth was from Massachusetts, a fifth from Pennsylvania. The Nine Old Men were 61, 64, 66, 70, 74, 74, 75, 77 and 80. Within a year after FDR’s attack on them, four had retired and one died. Today’s eight justices are 56, 60, 64, 72, 73, 73, 73 and 75. Ronald Reagan may get to name two or three more justices. The person second on the list O’Connor was first on was J . Clifford
Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority have entered the dangerous religio-political area. They want to dictate the choice of a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Falwell has suggested he talk to Arizona’s Judge Sandra O’Connor about abortion. Then, presumably, if he deems her views on it acceptable, the Senate can approve her nomination.
There has been a concentrated letter effort by the Moral Majority and others, on the single issue of abortion, to defeat her nomination. The arrogance of this action should anger Americans who believe that more is involved than that one issue.
We can’t let single-issue politics dictate the choice of a judge or any other public servant. The demands that the nomination be turned down must be countered by a flood of letters urging the Senate to decide no the basis of ability, background, experience and potential.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Noti-Sol). Esta semana el presidente Ronald Reagan cumplió una de sus mas repetidas promesas de su campafia politica postulando a una mujer, la juez la corte de apelaciones de Arizona, Sandra O’Connor, para ocupar un puesto en la suprema corte de justicia de la nación. Reagan indicó que no escogió a una mujer para suceder en el puesto al juez retirado Potter Stewart, sólo por hacerlo, sino porque la juez O’Connor tiene todas las cualidades necesarias para ocupar un puesto en la Suprema Corte. Reagan envió la postulación ante el senado para su aprobación e indicó que no se espera ninguna oposición al nombramiento de la primera mujer a la alta corte en sus 190 años de existencia. El senado iniciará la audiencia para la confirmación el 15 de julio. El Primer mandatario, al hacer el anuncio ante la televisión nacional, dijo que las investigaciones sobre el desempeño de su carrera de la juez O’Connor, realizadas por el FBI como dicta la ley, habian sido completadas y que era de gran satisfacción el dar a conocer que postulaba a la señora O’Connor para el puesto en la Suprema Corte de la nación. Agregó que ella es una persona completa que posee todas las cualidades de justicia, temperamento, capacidad intelectual y devoción por el bien público que caracterizaron a los 101 jueces que la precedieron en el puesto en la suprema carte. Agregó el presidente “la encorniendo a ustedes para que el senado ratifique la pos tulación y le perrnita tomar su puesto pronto en la
WASHINGTON – More than half the Senate either supports andra D. O’Connor for the Supreme ourt or is leaning that way, and here are no definite votes against her yet, an Associated Press survey hows The survey, taken Wednesday and Thursday, found 33 senators committed to vote for the 51-year-old Arizona appeals court judge and 20 leaning toward supporting her nomination as the first woman Supreme Court justice. There were no declarations of opposition, with 45 senators undecided and two not responding to the survey.
But many among the 45 undecided senators said they were pleased President Reagan had chosen a woman and, while they had made no firm decisions, would be inclined to support her from what is known from initial press reports and other sources about her background . Those committed to Judge O’Connor spill across the political spectrum, ranging from Republicans S.I. Hayakawa of California and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, the Judiciary Committee chairman , to Democrats Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Alan Cranston of California, the assistant minority leader. Many senators who said they support Judge O’Connor indicated that could change if investigations into her background turned up some unexpected problems.
Typical of the responses was that of Sen. LLoyd Bentsen, D-Texas, who declined to say he would definitely vote for Judge O’Connor. “I don’t know much about the nominee, but I commend the president for his decision to name the first woman to sit on the highest
WASHINGTON, July 8 – President Reagan was reported today to be urging some of his conservative allies to “keep an open mind” on the qualifications of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, his newly announced choice for the United States Supreme Court. until her Confirmation hearings are completed. Faced with the possibility of a vigorous campaign by antiabortion groups against Judge O’Connor, meanwhile, the White House attempted a counterattack by directly rebutting the charge that she voted on several occasions in favor of abortions. White House spokesmen asserted further that Judge O’Connor bad never been an activist on any issues related to feminism. David R. Gergen. the senior White House Spokesman, quoted the Arizona judge on the subject of the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution as being “neither as enthusiastic as some proponents nor as alarmed by it as some opponents.” Judge O’Connor, who has been described by the White House as person. ally opposed to abortions, has said that she will not discuss her views until her confirmation hearings. White House officials acknowledge that the judge regards abortion a legitimate matter for regulation by the legislative branch. By the end of the day, Administration officials said that they were encouraged by the prospects for confirmation of Judge O’Connor in the Senate. Yesterday, Mr. Reagan had Senator Jesse Helms, the conservative Republican from North Carolina, visit him at the White House to assuage his concerns about Judge
WASHINGTON (UPI) – Sen. Barry Goldwater warned the Moral Majority and other foes of Supreme Court nominee Sandra O’Connor ‘ today to “back off,” and said “a lot of foolish claptrap” had been circulated to undermine her chance for approval. In a speech to the Senate, the Arizona Republican said groups opposing Judge O’Connor “are totally off base.” Although stern, the language was more polite that Goldwater already has used against the Rev. Jerry , Falwell, who plans to use the political clout of his Moral Majority against the nominee. FALWELL CONCEDES he may not be able to stop Judge O’Connor from becoming the first woman in the high court. But the Moral Majority and other conservative groups that normally back -President Reagan have lashed out .against the selection. The opposition is based on her perceived past support for abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment but, speaking to the Senate, Goldwater said, “A lot of foolish claptrap has been written and spoken about President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee by people who do not know what they are talking about. “I ask these critics, who are associated with moral causes, to show the same Christian decency and fairness to Judge O’Connor that they expect of others,” he said. “Instead of jumping to conclusions about her views, on the basis of years’-old positions … why can’t these people wait until the nomination hearings and let Mrs. O’Connor discuss her views personally,” asked Goldwater, who is the No. 1 backer of the nominee.
PHOENIX (AP) – A conservative Republican legislator with a record as one of the most persistent sponsors of anti-abortion bills gave unqualified suppo rt Thursday to the nomination of Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Those who have attacked her have done more damage to the right-to-life cause than anybody else could do,” said Rep. Tony West, R-Phoenix. “I’m just furious about their attack on a woman who will be the best thing that ever r happened to the high court.” West’s attitude about abortions has not changed. He has sponsored countless proposals to ban abortions, including resolutions to put the prohibition in the U.S. ,Constitution.
STANFORD, Calif. (UPI) – A Stanford classmate of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Reagan’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, remembers her as “a complete person, interested in everything.” Mrs. O’Connor received her bachelor’s degree in economics from Stanford in 1950 and her law degree in 1952, ranking third in a class in which Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist was first. She met her future husband, John Jay O’Connor III, a 1951 graduate of Stanford, on the school’s prestigious Law Review board of editors. And she was elected to serve as a trustee of the university from 1976 to 1980. San Francisco attorney Atherton Phleger, a fellow law student, said he remembered her brilliance and the fact that she never isolated herself from anything. ” She was a complete person, interested in everything and not cloistered,” Phleger said. Stanford President Donald Kennedy said, “We’re very proud of her.” “It’s a superb appointment,” Stanford Law School Dean Charles Meyer said. “She’s a woman of great ability, tremendous balance and good political understanding .” Mrs. O’Connor went to work in the district attorney ‘s office in San Mateo County, Calif., after she graduated from law school, first as a law clerk and later as an assistant district attorney working in civil law. She went on to win election to the Arizona state Senate, becoming the first woman in the nation to serve as a majority leader in a state legislature, was elected a Superior Court judge and was appointed to the Arizona
President Reagan’s history-making Supreme Court nomination is not likely to dramatically tilt the nation’s highest bench in one political direction, Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor’s staunch admirers in the feminist community could end up a little disappointed, while her virulent critics – mostly right-to-life and anti-ERA activists – could find her to be something less than the ogre they’re now portraying. THAT’S the conclusion based on a careful review of Mrs. O’Connor’s five-year tenure in the Arizona Senate, the most likely lode of clues to her political leanings, which she has so far politely declined to discuss with newsmen. What Senate records – busily being examined by reporters from across the country this week – reveal is a moderate-to-conservative lawmaker with a fairly regular Republican voting record, and special concerns for improving the law enforcement system and services to the disadvantaged. They do not show a woman carrying a banner on standard women’s issues, such as the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion and family planning. “I’VE NEVER heard her express a strong opinion one way or the other Analysis on those things,” said fellow Appeals Court jurist Lawrence Wren. “I don’t think she can be stereotyped on those issues at all.” In fact, critics blasting her “consistent” pro-abortion voting record will find little in official records to document the claim. In her five years in the Senate, abortion-related bills only reached the Senate floor twice.
Geography is destiny, as Freud said – or was that Rand & McNally? Anyway, everybody ‘s paying a lot of attention to the fact that President Reagan has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court and overlooking the fact that he has nominated an Arizonan, which is also significant. If she is { {,nl1r med, Sandra O’Connor will I,{ 111ily the eighth justice from west of the 100th meridian, which is where the West begins. Two of the others are still on the court – Rehnquist of Arizona and White of Colorado – so the contemporary court is a third Western, for the first time. Geography was an important criteria in selecting the early justices. George Washington picked half from the North and half from the South. From 1789 till 1932 there was a ” New England seat.” There was a “New York seat” from 1806 till 1890. There was a “Maryland -Virginia seat” from 1789 till the Civil War. In this century, geography has been less honored. There have been some extreme imbalances. On the famous “nine old men” court that President Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked in 1937, three of the nine justices had been New York City lawyers, a fourth was from Massachusetts, a fifth from Pennsylvania. The Nine Old Men were 61, 64, 66, 70, 74, 74, 75, 77 and 80. Within a year after FDR’s attack on them, four had retired and one died. Today’s eight justices are 56, 60, 64, 72, 73, 73, 73 and 75. Ronald Reagan may get to name two or three more justices. The person second on the list O’Connor was first on was J. Clifford
Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, for more than two decades a darling of Republican conservatives, has warned anti-abortionists and fundamentalist religious groups that he is ready to fight them to help win Senate confirmation of Sandra D. O’Connor as a Supreme Court justice. Judge O’Connor is an appellate judge in Goldwater’s home district. Goldwater, angered by opposition to President Reagan’s choice from anti-abortion groups and especially by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, said Wednesday, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the-.” Goldwater, who is of Jewish ancestry and an Episcopalian, said anyone who wants to fight Judge O’Connor’s confirmation will have to fight him. “You could offer the Lord’s name for some of these position and you’d find some of these outfits objecting even to him being appointed to anything,” said Goldwater. ” I don’t buy this idea that a justice of the Supreme Court has to stand for this, that or the other thing. And I’m getting a little tired of people in this country raising hell because they don’t happen to subscribe to every thought that person has ” I am probably one of tlie most conservative members of the Congress and I don’t like to get kicked around by people who call themselves conservatives on a non-conservative matter. It is a question of who is best for the court. “If it’s going to take a fight, they’re going to find old Goldy fighting like hell.” The Senate was in recess when Reagan
President Reagan made it plain that he would seek a conservative jurist to fill any vacan cy on the Supreme Court. He has now selected a respected judge; the fact that she is a woman is secondary . In Judge Sandra O’Connor he seems to have found a candidate who reflects his philosoph y that the cour t should interpret law rather than sh a pe it. Academically, Judge O’Connor is superbly quali- .fied. After earning a degree in economics, sh e was graduated from Sta nford University law school with highest honors and was a n edito r of the Stanford Law Review . She stood thi r d in a class that held Justice William Rehnquist and her husband, John Jay O’Con – nor III. She fulfilled he r early pr omise in a rapidly rising career by becoming depu ty coun ty a tto rney for San Mateo Count y, Ca lif ., as sistant attorney general of Arizona, an Arizona state senator , senate majority leader and superior court judge. E ighteen months ago she was appointed to t he Ari zona Court of Appeals by a Democratic governor . Arizona justices pronounce her leg a lly sound . Sen . Barr y Goldwater is one of her steadfast supporters . O’Connor’s written decisions suggest th a t she is no ideologue, but rather judges ea ch cas e on its mer its , Her childhood on a cattl e ranch northw est of El Paso , a cousi n a nd fr iend in Houst on says , m a de her self -sufficie nt , a voracio us r ea der, a nd “peopl e-orien ted rather than male- or fema le-or ien te d.” Judge O’Conno r would bring L1. remar
WASHING TON-Aristophanes’ ashes must have erupted like Mt. St. Helens when President Reagan named a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some 411 years before Christ, Aristophanes was writing In “Lysistrata” that, “There Is no animal more invincible than a woman, nor fire either, nor any wildcat so ruthless.” Images arise of Sandra Day O’Connor clawing at the eyes of Chief Justice Burger as he tries to Impose some argument upon the rest of the court. And Shakespeare’s bones must have beaten each other like castanets, muffling out even the strident protests of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. It was Shakespeare, after all, who wrote: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” Can’t you just see tears cascading down O’Connor’s robe as frailty prevents her from dealing with some absurd opinion by her old Stanford classmate, Justice William Rehnquist? Whether he chose O’Connor to keep a campaign promise, or because he has been catching unmitigated hell from Republican women who say he hasn’t given enough decent jobs to females, President Reagan deserves high praise for . naming O’Connor to the nation’s highest tribunal. After 191 years of wallowing In the lnanities of Aristophanes and Shakespeare, and assorted chauvinisms In between, it is gOOd to see Reagan respond to the principle that America’s commitment to justice is deepened when women sit on the court. We go back and forth from the trifling to the vulgar in our assertions that women are “different” from men. It Is time that we faced the reality that
Abortion issue splits conservatives over O’Connor’s appointment
WASHINGTON – President ReagBD kept one campaign promise this week by nominating a woman for the Supreme Court, but he might have broken another pledge when he failed to seek the advice of the American Bar Association in making his decision. The president’s selection of Judge Sandra O’Connor, 51, of the Arizona Court of Appeals to succeed Justice Potter Stewart fulfills Reagan’s campaign vow last year to nominate a woman to fill one of the ftrst vacancies occurring on the high court. Richard Collins, a spokesman for the American Bar .Association, said the association was not consult.ed before the president’s announcement of his choice Tuesday, although Reagan promised last fall to seek advice from the 280,000- …
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Reagan is telling angry conservatives to let Sandra D. O’Connor speak for herseH on abortion and other issues before declaring her unsuitable for the Supreme Court. Her turn may come at Senate hearings later this month. But even as Reagan tried to douse a political brushfire sparked by the nomination, White House and congressional leaders predicted the 51-year-old Arizona appeals judge from Paradise Valley will be confinned as the first woman justice with no problems. Sen. Strom Thwmond , R-S.C., a ranking conservative and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that he hopes to begin hearings by late July. A confirmation vote then could come in September, after Congress’ midswruner vacation and before the Supreme Court’s fall term begins in October. “I would say the Senate will confirm her unless something comes up that we don’t know about,” Thurmond said. Nevertheless, Reagan was trying to calm a storm brewing on the religious and political right over O’Connor’s views on abortions and women’s rights. The objections concern O’Connor’s votes against several pieces of anti-abortion legislation while she was a member of the Arizona Senate. White House officials, however, insist she opposes abortion. Spokesman David Gergen said Wednesday that the president hopes that “those who have expressed concern about Judge O’Connor’s views will keep an open mind until they have a chance to hear her express her views and a chance to fully examine
PHOENIX – Sandra Day O’Connor loves to cook, but the 51-year-old judge hasn’t had much time for that or other hobbies since President Reagan nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We’ve practically given up eating,” she said ruefully on Wednesday as she she tried to juggle work, picture-taking sessions and helping FBI agents who are checking her background. The sign on her door said: “Open – Come In,” and it seemed like everybody wanted to do just that. It wasn’t just flowers, calls and visitors, though. Secretaries and aides kept popping in from neighboring offices to offer new supplies of paper cups or gawk at the White House press aide shuffling newspaper clippings in a corner of the three-room office. “This is the wildest experience of my life,” O’Connor said as she greeted former colleagues from her days as I state Senate majority leader. I wasn’t able to get through on the telephone, so I came over,” explained Republican state Sen. Ray Rottas of Phoenix, one of those she greeted warmly. Flowers overflowed from her private office. Case folders and legal papers competed for space on every tabletop and filing cabinet with orchids, carnations and dozens of long-stemmed red and yellow roses, wrapped in American flag ribbons or displayed in vases. A jar of jelly beans stood in the center of O’Connor’s desk, minus about a fifth of the candies that were in it when it arrived from a well-wisher on Tuesday. Family pictures and an oriental print hung on the walls, and the judge’s
WASHING TON – President Reagan sought to calm the religious and political right Wednesday over his nomination of Arizona’s Sandra O’Connor to the Supreme Court, and a key senator predicted that she will be confirmed without difficulty. Aside from outraged cries from anti-abortion groups, there was no firm opposition to Judge O’Connor where it count.s – among the 98 men and two women in the Senate who finally will decide whether she will be the first woman to serve on the high court. But the White House said that because speculation on the possibility of her nomination began last week, early mail and telephone calls were running against the nomination. Telegrams and Mailgrams were 290 pro and 2,573 against, and phone calls were 263 pro and 1,554 against. Despite opposition by such groups as the Moral Majority, Judge O’Connor was backed by Senate Judiciary _Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., a key conservative leader . “I expect to support her,” Thurmond said. “I would say the Senate will confirm her unless something comes up that we don’t know about.” His view was echoed by Senate Democratic leader Robert Byrd and assistant Republican leader Ted Stevens, who said they know of no senators expressly against Judge O’Connor. The president hopes for – and expect.s – quick confirmation of his nominee. On his return from horseback riding Wednesday at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, he was asked about Senate confirmation of Judge O’Connor. “I expect it,” he said. Senate GOP
With his nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court vacancy, President Reagan has won admiring applause from rival politicians for a masterly political stroke as well as a strong judicial choice.
This city still recalls that a little over a decade ago President Richard M. Nixon had to face political humiliation when the Senate rejected two of his Court nominees, Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. and G. Harrold Carswell.
Now, Mr. Reagan is being credited with an astute Court selection that immediately won the endorsement of a broad spectrum, from conservatives like Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, to liberals like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
The President has risked a new breach with the radical right wing of the Republican Party, which has provided his most zealous political support through the years and is now openly dismayed over Mr. Reagan’s Court choice.
Blunts Democrats’ Charge
But in the process, several members of Congress commented, the President has blunted the right-wing stereotype that Democrats were beginning to use against him in the increasingly partisan battle over economic issues.
House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., Democrat of Massachusetts, who has been in a toe-to-toe battle with Mr. Reagan on the budget and taxes, called a truce long enough to hail Judge O’Connor’s nomination as ”the best thing he’s done since he was inaugurated.” Meanwhile, right-wing leaders were accusing the President of betraying the
STANFORD, Calif. – Sandra O’Connor once replied to a Stanford University alumni survey by describing her work as “attempting to administer oldtime justice in a modern age.” Judge O’Connor received her bachelor’s degree in economics from Stanford in 1950 and her law degree in 1952, ranking third in a class in which Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist was first. She met her future husband, John .Jay O’Connor III, a 1951 graduat.e of Stanford, on the school’s prestigious Law Review board of editors. She was elected to serve as a trust.ee of the university from 1976 to 1980. “We’re very proud of her,” Stanford President Donald Kennedy said. “It’s a superb appointment,” Stanford Law School Dean Charles Meyer said. Judge O’Connor went to work in the district attorney’s office in San Mateo County, Calif., after she graduated from law school, first 88 a law clerk and later as an assistant district attorney working in civil law. She went on to win election to the Arizona Senate, becoming the first woman in the nation to serve as a majority leader in a state legislature, was elected a Superior Court judge and was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Gerald Gunther, a constitutional scholar at Stanford, said he was pleased the Reagan administration took the “high road” in filling the Supreme Court vacancy. “Perhaps the best thing that’s happened is the right-to-life people oppose O’Connor,” Gunther said. “She seems by all report.a to be a perfectly qualified, conservative-philosophy
