Her Gender Will Mean Less than Her Legal Skills

Two centuries of national history suggest that Sandra O’Connor will be confirmed in due time and take her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court unless a continuing investigation unearths something wholly unexpected. Her nomination by President Reagan has given the political far right and opponents of abortion per se another megaphone, which will be exploited thoroughly. However, her conservative credentials are nearly impeccable and, after all, didn’t Mr. Reagan himself sign an bill permitting abortion when he was governor of California? After the thunder on the right diminishes, the U.S. Senate will confront an inexorable historical fact: Except in rare cases, only egregious-, ly unqualified persons have been rejected and O’Connor clearly is qualified. Since 1787, U.S. presidents have nominated 139 persons to the court. Only 26 were considered unfit by the Senate. Most recently denied confirmation were Clement F. Haynsworth in 1969 and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970, both named by President Nixon. It’s a reasonable assumption that the Senate will not compound President Reagan’s historic landmark by rejecting the first female court appointee over a single issue. So speculation deepens on how O’Connor’s presence will influence the court. Published analyses suggest that O’Connor will have more understanding of state and local issues and problems, given her background in the Arizona legislature and on the Arizona bench. President Reagan apparently believes that O’Connor will “interpret !he_