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.
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
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
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.
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.
…
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 (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”
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
WASHINGTON- President Ronald Reagan. trying to calm the outcry on the right, has launched a personal campaign to win Senate approval of Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman on the US Supreme Court. While Reagan wooed Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, and conservative Sen . Jesse Helms (R-N .C.) even his critics were hailing his choice and its timing. Despite opposition from conservative groups that have questioned her views on abortions and the equal rights amendment , most analysts predicted O’Connor would be confirmed. Senate Judiciary Chairman Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) declared yesterday he expects O’Connor to be confirmed without difficulty. “I expect to support her,” said Thurmond. a key conservative leader. “I would say the Senate will confirm her unless something comes up that we don’t know about. ” Reagan met at the White House with Helms and telephoned Rev. Falwell, asking both to “keep an open mind” about his selection. As Helms left the White House, he said he and “at least five or six other” members of the Senate remained “skeptical.” spokesman for Falwell said he did not commit himself despite the President’s request that he “reconsider .” White House spokesman David R. Gergen said that the overall reaction to the nomination “has generally been very positive.” He said 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
Newspapers around the country have given President Reagan high marks in their editorial pages for his nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor of Paradise Valley to the Supreme Court. Here is a sample of the editorial reaction: . “Give the President credit for honoring his own campaign promise . . . The right-to-life movement and other extremists are already giving him – and Justice-designate O’Connor – the backhanded honor of opposing the nomination because she showed moderation on some social issues . . . Her total record, we suspect, will show a lawyer, public servant and state court judge of the even temperament and open mind that the nation’s highest court deserves. ” THE NEW YORK TIMES “President Reagan has shown great courage and a sense of balance . . . The president has made a wise choice in Sandra O’Connor.” FORT LAUDERDALE (FLA.) NEWS “It is precisely (Judge O’Connor’s ) failure to conform to any absolutist standard on a single issue of social policy that helps make her appointment all the more a mature one.” WS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER “Mrs. O’Connor’s political beliefs are probably more conservative than we would like; after all, she ls a Republican. But indications are that she is truly a ‘class’ person who can handle the challenge.” ATLANTA CONSTITUTION “Tradition and public attitudes kept qualified women off the Supreme Court in the past . .. The nomination of Judge O’Connor is an important and longoverdue step in the movement to admit qualified women to top positions
Abortion issue splits conservatives over O’Connor’s appointment
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
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.
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- …
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
WASHINGTON – (AP) – Senate leaders said Tuesday they would seek swift confirmation of Sandra D. O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice for the Supreme Court. In a Republican-controlled Senate, some of the strongest praise of O’Connor was from Democrats, who said they were pleased Reagan had chosen a woman with strong legal credentials. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., the assistant Democratic leader, called O’Connor “a brilliant legal scholar with considerable legal experience.” By naming the first woman justice, Reagan has taken a “major step in the battle to eliminate sex discrimination,” Cranston said.
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Howard Baker of Tennessee, who also commended Reagan for naming a woman, said he was “delighted” by the choice and promised to work for her confirmation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which must confirm the nomination, said he was “extremely pleased” with the decision to choose a woman. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, learned of the selection less than an hour before it was announced by Reagan. Nonetheless, he said, “I am glad the president has made his choice, and I will do everything Ican to help the president.” Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., senior Democrat on the committee, said O’Connor “seems to be eminently qualified for the position.”
ONE REPUBLICAN MEMBER of the judiciary panel, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, cautioned against deciding too quickly on O’Connor’s qualifications.
For Sandra O’Connor, the U.S. supreme Court Justice-designate born in El Paso and raised on the family ranch ‘straddling the Arizona-New Mexico border, success was part of life that was “just supposed to be,” according to a Houston cousin who shared her childhood.
Born Sandra Day, the girl drove a tractor when she was 10, rode a horse and helped round up the cattle on the Lazy B, her family’s ranch northwest of El Paso and south of Duncan, Ariz., her relatives said. In winters, she attended school In El Paso.
“WE WERE CONSIDERED people. We were not considered little girls who can’t do anything. We played dolls, but were were certainly good with screwdrivers, nails and roundups too,” said Flournoy D. Manzo, who in childhood was always, seemingly, at the side of her year-younger first cousin.
Manzo, now a University of Houston administrator, and Evelyn Wooten, Manzo’s mother and O’Connor’s aunt, Tuesday afternoon were enjoying the thrill of a close relative becoming an historic figure and sharing their joy by opening up the family album. Out spilled photos of two young girls enjoying themselves on a beach, in family and school groups and with horses. Also, out came the O’Connor family holiday cards. One shows her and husband John, an attorney, backpacking.
A 1974 CARD HAS the O’Connors, included the three sons, pictured with powdered wigs and sitting on the “O’Connor Supreme Court.” Sandra O’Connor is listed as “co-chief justice, junior grade,” and her election to the Superior
WASHINGTON – Ending almost two centuries of tradition, President Reagan announced Tuesday that he is nominating the first woman to the United States Supreme Court – Arizona jurist Sandra D. O’Connor. Mrs. O’Connor, 51, a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals who has received a highly favorable rating from the state bar association, was named to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart. The President, making the historic announcement in the White House briefing room, called Mrs. O’Connor “truly a person for all seasons” and urged her swift confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled hearings on Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. Capitol Hill sources said Tuesday that she would encounter little difficulty getting confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate despite opposition from the anti-abortion movement MAJORITY LEADER. Howard Baker (R, tenn.) pledged to head the Senate effort backing Mrs O’Connor’s confirmation. “I commend the President for the courage of his decision to name a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Baker said. Reagan’s nomination of Mrs. O’Connor was immediately challenged by the antiabortion lobby because she had supported less restrictive abortion laws. DR. JOHN C. WILLKE of Cincinnati, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said: “The entire pro-life movement will oppose her confirmation.” Reagan, however, told reporters Tuesday that
WASHINGTON President Reagan appealed to a wide range of his constituency – and won back many disaffected Republican women – with his choice for the Supreme Court, but he continued to alienate the far right. The choice of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first woman on the nation’s highest court was superb politics for Reagan. It strengthens his credibility he pledged early in his presidential campaign that one of his first appointments to the high court would be a woman. REAGAN already has gotten more credit than most of his predecessors for keeping his campaign promises. It wins back to his corner thousands of rank-and-file Republican women who were in near open rebellion over the administration’s meager record of finding women for top jobs in Washington. At the same time, it takes away an argument from Equal Rights Amendment supporters that the ERA is needed because the Reagan administration is no friend of women.
[Photo caption: Gazette Photo Judge Sandra O’Connor’s nomination won back many disaffected Republican women for President Reagan and was hailed as superb politics.] BUT THE nomination outraged the easily outraged Moral Majority, which vowed to fight the nomination on the grounds Mrs. O’Connor, while in the Arizona Senate, took stands indicating support for ERA and abortion. One leader of the anti-abortion movement, theologian Harold O.J. Brown, declared: “Reagan is absolutely finished with pro-life people, absolutely. They are so betrayed by this that he will
Nominated as the first woman to the nation’s highest court, State Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor said she “never thought (her nomination) would be a reality.” But being first is nothing new for the 51-year-old O’Connor, who President Reagan chose Tuesday to fill the vacancy of retired Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. In 1969 she became Arizona’s first female legislator, and she went on to become Senate majority leader in 1973. She was the first and only woman to hold the job in either house of the state Legislature. Born March 26, 1930 on a ranch near Duncan, O’Connor has an extensive background in law and politics, and she rates superlatives from her col• leagues in both arenas. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Frank X. Gordon said'()’Connor has “philosophical leanings that a lot of us as well as the president would like to see.” But at least one assistant Arizona attorney general, who describes himself as a liberal, believes O’Connor’s politics haven’t affected her philosophy of the law. “I’ve had several cases before her, and all of her decisions have been fair. I don’t think her political beliefs will have that much to do with her decisions in Washington.” O’Connor was one of only five women in her class at the law school in 1952, and graduated third in her class. She also was a member of the board of editors of the Stanford Law Review. She man:ied another classmate, John Jay O’Connor m, now a Phoenix lawyer. They have three sons. Her first job was as deputy county
… reporters Tuesday that Mrs. O’Connor ”falls generally within the President’s overall judicial philosophy .., Smith said at the White House that Mrs. O’Connor was a judicial conservative. “We’re satisfied that she considers it the function of the court to apply and interpret the law and not to make it,” Smith said “She recognizes that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to enact laws.”
According to Smith, the names of more than 20 potential nominees were submitted to Reagan. The attorney general declined to say whether Reagan interviewed other candidates for the vacancy.
At a press conference in Phoenix. Judge O’Connor declined to talk about issues, pending her confirmation hearing. Following is a partial transcript:
Q-When did you find out President Reagan would nominate you?
A-He called me yesterday afternoon, about 4 o’clock our time, and spoke with me at that time.
Q-Had you, considered you were a serious contender for the post?
A-I assumed that l was because I was interviewed late last week in Washington.
Q-What kind of questions did the president ask?
A-I’m not at liberty to disclose the contents of the conversation, and you can check with the White House on that.
Q-How do you view yourself as far as the law’s concerned … your legal approach? A-I simply try to do as good a job as I can with each question as it arises.
Q-What were your thoughts when you first realized that you were being considered. that you might be the first woman on the Supreme
Sandra Day O’Connor, trim and festively clad in cowboy denim and boots, walked quietly away from the dust-stirring clamor of about 700 guests and seated herself on a low, shaded wall while a Western band warmed up.
Last Sept. 20 marked the 100th anniversary of the Lazy B ranch where four generations of the Day family have grown up, never straying too far.
SANDRA, THE OLDEST of Harry Day’s children, earlier took her place beside her mother Ada Mae, brother Alan and sister Ann (Mrs. Scott Alexander) and long-time foreman Webb Cole atop a wagon that was circled by friends, relatives and guests.
Each got up from their folding chair and spoke briefly into a microphone, sharing greetings, a special anecdote or two and some slightly choking sentiments about the landmark gathering.
Sandra, with a permanent and warm smile fixed on her face, had watched her father with clear-eyed adoration as the 83-year-old patriarch stiffly fidgeted with the microphone and then launched past some brief public shyness into a reel of momentum-gathering recollections of ranch life that were lost among the mostly younger crowd, who applauded and laughed eagerly.
SANDRA’S SHORT, WELCOMING remarks were polished, gracious and almost unnoticeably forgotten – the way it was supposed to be. After all, the day was designed for nostalgia and Harry Day.
She sat quietly on the wall in front of her girlhood home and patiently studied the throng in front of her while dust sifted upward in the heat of the breezeless
This article was prepared by Stephen Wenniel, Robert E. Taylor and Monica Langley.
WASHINGTON – President Reagan picked Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court, a selection that may bring about more of a symbolic than a philosophical change on the court. If, as seems likely, she is confirmed as the 102nd Justice in the 191-year history of the Supreme Court Mrs. O’Connor will become its first woman member. While her nomination holds a symbolic importance for women, the philosophical impact is less certain and it may be several years before the effect Is fully realized. The 51-year-old Phoenix Republican Is described by Arizona lawyers as moderate to conservative with much of the independence and judicial restraint that marked her predecessor on the high court. “It’s going to be Potter Stewart all over again,” says John Frank, a Phoenix attorney and longtime Supreme Court watcher. Classmate of Rehnquist Those who know her say she Is less fixed In Ideology than Justice William Rehnquist, the court’s most hard-and-fast conservative, who was a classmate at Stanford University Law School and with whom she has remained in contact. Charles Ares, a University of Arizona law professor, says she isn’t “a right-wing ideologue. I guess that means she’ll be in the middle.” On some specific issues, her views appear to be consistent with the President’s, according to administration aides and others. As a state senator, she helped draft death penalty legislation
SINCE her graduation from law school at the age of 22, Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated Tuesday to . the U.S. Supreme Court, has made her mark both as a judge and as a Republican politician in Arizona Mrs. O’Connor, 51, is a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was born in 1930, in El Paso, Tex., but she grew up on a cattle ranch in southern Arizona and claims that as her native state. She received a bachelor’s degree in economics with “great distinction” from Stanford University in 1950. She earned her law degree two years later, also from Stanford and also with honors . She ranked third in her law class; the person who ranked No. 1 was fellow Westerner William Rehnquist, who has been on the Supreme Court since 1972. Another classmate was Frank X. Gordon, now an Arizona Supreme Court justice. “‘SHE’S EXCEPTIONALLY well qualified, with a tremendous background in politics,” Gordon said after learning of her nomination. She was married to a classmate, John O’Connor, and remained in CaHfornia while he finished law school. She worked for a time as an assistant district attorney in San Mateo County. She joined the Arizona bar in 1957, practiced briefly in Maryvale, Ariz., and was an assistant attorney general from 1965 to 1969. , In 1969, she was appointed to the state senate and subsequently was elected to two terms as a Republican. She was elected majority leader, the first woman to win such a powerful state position. She received 75 per cent of the vote, more than any other
Washington (News Bureau)-President Reagan’s nomination of a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court has created a major political problem for him by angering some of his staunchest supporters-the “New Right” conservatives of the Moral Majority and the right-to-life movement who form the bedrock ot his political base. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of Moral Majority, predicted that “church people will desert (Reagan) in droves” because of the nomination of Sandra D. O’Connor. “Either the President did not have sufficient information about Judge O’Connor’s background in social issues , or he chose to Ignore the information,” the Rev. Falwell said. DB. CAROLYN GERSTER of Phoenix, former president of the National Right-to-Life Committee, said that O’Connor had twice voted in favor of abortion while a member of the Arizona Senate. Conservatives also contended that O’Connor was a member of a Senate committee that introduced a pro-equal rights amendment bill. Sandra O’Connor had a consistent and strong pro-abortion voting record while a senator in Arizona,” charged J.C. Wilke of Cincinnati, president of the National Right-to-Life Committee. He accused Reagan of Ignoring the pledge of the 1980 GOP platform to appoint judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” But the President, in announcing O’Connor’s nomination yesterday at the White House, said he was “completely satisfied” with her record on right-to-life Issues. He did not elaborate. WHILE ANTI-ABORTI
Washington
Sandra D. O’Connor’s opinions during her 18 months as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent.
They do not shed much light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A former Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate, O’Connor is widely regarded as
conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record, however.,has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge.
A review of O’Connor’s 30 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed
none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial constitutional issues the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and
the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Thus it appears to be far too early to determine whether the ideologically divided court will become more conservative or…
Analysis Includes interpretation by the writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Although she proved herself-a scholarly and lucid writer in her short tenure on Arizona’s appeals court, Judge Sandra O’Connor never really faced the hot legal and constitutional issues of the day. An analysis of nearly all the opinions she’s written in 1½ years on the state bench shows that she dealt mainly with routine matters, such as workmen’s compensation and divorces. That means her supporters and detractors must look elsewhere for the views of President Reagan’s nominee to become the first female member of the Supreme Court – particularly in the areas of abortion and women’s rights. For some, that search already ls over. Within hours of Tuesday’s announcement, the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group announced they would oppose the nomination of the Republican jurist. A spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee said the opposition would be based on stances O’Connor took as a member of the Arizona state Senate. But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said O’Connor had told the president “she ls personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorrent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.” Although she declined to discuss “substantive issues” pending her confirmation, O’Connor told a news conference in Phoenix Tuesday she has special “appreciation for the legislative process.”
WASHINGTON – In the long run. the most significant fact about Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor may turn out to be not that she is a woman but that she has served as a state legislator and state judge. O’Connor’s experience at the state level is almost as unusual for the modern-day Supreme Court ru: is her gender . For the past quartercentury, virtually every person appointed to the Supreme Court has come there from the same national channels: a federal judgeship, a federal government job in Washington or a nationally prominent law practice. Not since Justice William J. Brennan Jr. came to Washington from the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1956 has any justice been appointed with experience in a state court system. None of the members of the current court has ever served in a state legislature. If O’Connor gives the justices a ground-level view of the way state courts and legislatures operate, her voice could prove highly influential. She could, in fact, become a powerful advocate on behalf of President Reagan’s oft-stated desire to give greater power to the states. The Supreme Court is regularly asked to pass judgment on the validity of laws enacted by state legislatures and rulings by state courts. Generally, the justices find it much easier to rule unconstitu- . tional the actions of these state bodies than the laws passed by Congress or the actions of federal agencies. • In the court term that has just ended, for example, the Supreme Court moved further in the
Washington-Ronald Reagan the politician has shown once again that he has the sure touch of a safecracker, and the nerves. With the announcement yesterday that he will appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, the President has won the support of liberals and feminists and has undercut growing criticism that he has failed to give women important jobs. National Organization for Women President Eleanor Smeal, who in the past has characterized Reagan’s views on so-called women’s issues as “pathetic” and “medieval,” praised the nomination of Arizona Judge Sandra Day O’Connor as “a major victory.” The criticism this time has come from some longstanding supporters-social conservatives, particularly antiabortion activists-but even that is not necessarily bad news for the President. Reagan’s conservative base is not really threatened, one adviser said, and the right-wing ire makes him look practically moderate. “It does a lot of things for us,” another aide, presidential pollster Richard Wirthlin, said of the appointment. “Somebody told me once that the worst thing you can do in politics is have your most ideological supporters be perfectly happy with you.” When you do, he.went on, it’s likely to mean that just about everybody else is not. Now, by appointing a woman who apparently holds moderate views on social issues, Reagan has managed to win praise from feminists who disagree with his views on the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights an:a- criticize his record on appointments.
Sandra O’Connor may have just won national acclaim, but she’s had the admiration of various Arizona State University professors for a long time. She’s been making friends in Tempe over the years as an active supporter of the College of Law. Besides being on the college’s board of visitors for a year, O’Connor has served on panels critiquing law students’ performances during staged classroom trials. Dean Alan Matheson said O’Connor’s heavy involvement began in the 1970s, when she pushed for a law internship program at the Legislature. Burdened with heavy court dockets, she helped law professor Robert Misner produce a videotape of a mock murder trial he still uses in criminal law classes. “She is very concerned about maintaining the quality of law education in Arizona,” Misner said. “Her time was very valuable as a judge, yet she thought enough about the future of the legal profession to dedicate her time to the law school. “She has been an active supporter in helping to assure that Arizona has a bright, young crop of attorneys.” Misner called O’Connor “extremely bright, forthright and straightforward.” Criminal Justice Professor Peter Haynes said he knows O’Connor through her work in the Legislature for court administration reform. That background and her concern with equal rights will help her “fit in well” with Chief Justice Warren Burger, he said. Haynes remembers a college commencement address in which O’Connor recalled her graduation from law school in 1952. “She said she
It didn’t taken Sandra O’Connor long to make a good impression on her colleagues. President Reagan yesterday broke two centuries of male exclusivity by naming O’Connor to replace retired Justice Potter Stewart. In the 18 months she ~t on the Arizona Court of Appeals, she won the respect of her male colleagues, who showered her with praise when her name was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. O’Connor, 51, is a former Republican state legislator and superior court judge. She was appointed to the state appeals court in December 1979.
During her years in the Senate, she promoted a modernized mental treatment and commitment law, pushed for constitutional spending limits and supported open-meeting laws. She voluntarily left the Legislature in 1974 and was elected Maricopa County Superior Court judge, a position she held until moving on to the Appeals Court. Majority leader “She has a razor-sharp mind which, combined with a steady temperament, makes her well~ted for the tough questions that would be presented to U.S. Supreme Court justices,” said Appeals Court Judge Donald Froeb. A leader in Arizona GOP politics, she was co-chair of the state committee to re-elect Richard Nixon In 1972. ”She. not only Is an outstanding person In all respects, but she is exceptionally well qualified in the legal field,”‘ Froeb said. Sb first was appointed to the Arizona Senate In 1969, was elected twice to that body and In 1973-74 served,.” as majority .leader .,..;. first . woman in the
From all accounts, President Reagan picked a winner and made history as well by selecting. Sandra O’Connor to fill the vacancy on the· Supreme Court.
The highest court in the land has been an, all-male bastion for much too long, and we’re! happy to see Reagan breach the wall. It’s a signal, honor for the Arizona jurist and a long-overdue· recognition of the fact that in law, as in other ‘fields, women have come into their own.
But Judge O’Connor promises to bring to the court more than a history-making label. She was, a top student at Stanford Law School, a respected lawyer in Arizona and the Republican majority leader of the State Senate before being named to an appellate court-by a Democratic governor.
People familiar with Judge O’Connor’s work on the bench give her high marks on all counts-grasp of the law, judicial temperament and clear, cogently written opinions.
The chorus of approval is not unanimous. The Right to Life Committee and the Moral Majority already have protested what they regard as Judge O’Connor’s “pro-abortion” leanings. What that means, we suspect, is that as a private citizen the judge doesn’t share their particular views on abortion.
But her entire record argues that she would not on the bench let her personal views intrude on her judicial actions. Apparently, she does not subscribe to the old Earl Warren philosophy of the Supreme Court’s right to invade every nook and cranny of American life.
In this sense, Mrs. O’Connor is judicially nonpartisan
The woman likely to become the first woman to sit on the United States _Supreme Court doesn’t stand to any side, according to her Houston cousin “She’s almost a middle-of-the-roader. And I don’t think she’s a feminist, either . I think she’s interested in people, rather than men or women per se. That’s just the way we were both brought up,” says Flournoy Manzo, director of the International Trade Institute at the University of Houston and a first cousin to Judge Sandra D. O’Connor. Contacted Tuesday after President Reagan nominated Mrs . O’Connor, an Arizona appellate court Judge and a former Arizona state senator, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart, Mrs. Manzo described the cousin she grew up with in El Paso as “a very intelligent and astute person who s interested in everything.” In fact, says Mrs. Manzo, when Reagan first suggested that he might give a woman the Supreme Court nod, we all immediately thought of my cousin.” . Not only has she had an outstanding career, but she’s been extremely active in both the Republican Party and state polltics in Arizona. She was even asked by some people there to run for governor four year s ago, but she decided against that .” Mrs. Manzo says. “At least to us, she seemed a very likely candidate.” Mrs. Manzo, 52, says she and Judge O’Connor have remained very close since the days when they used to alternate spending winters in El Paso at her family home and summers at her cousin’s
Conservative but not an ideologue. Sharpminded, with a thorough knowledge of the law. Intellectual. Organized. Fair. A legal technician. In the words of President Reagan, “a person for all seasons.” The descriptive accolades arrived in torrents Tuesday, just minutes after Reagan nominated Sandra O’Connor, 51, an Arizona appellate court judge who was born and raised on a ranch in the small mining town of Duncan, to be the first woman to take a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
There was widespread praise for the appointment from Republicans and Democrats, feminists and political moderates. Only anti-abortionists and farright political groups like the Moral Majority, alarmed by O’CoMor’s legislative record on abortion and the equal rights amendment, protested the action. It appeared unlikely they would muster the political clout to derail Senate approval of her nomination. O’Connor, who learned the news Monday night when Reagan telephoned her, exhibited a reaction that mirrored both her legislative and court record: subdued. “This is a momentous day in my life and the life of my family,” O’Connor said. “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.” An analysis of her voting and court record, coupled with interviews of professional colleagues, shows O’Connor emerging as a well-qualified, sharp-minded magistrate who has developed a conservative
WASHINGTON – President Reagan broke the all-male tradition on the Supreme Court on Tuesday by nominating Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart. Judge O’Connor, 51, becomes the first woman ever nominated to sit on the high court. Reagan, who made the announcement at a news conference, said of Judge O’Connor, “She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.” In remarks prepared for delivery later Tuesday in Chicago at a fundraiser for Gov. James Thompson, R-Ill., Reagan said, “After listening to her and examining her whole record in public life, I am fully satisfied that her appointment is consistent with the principles enunciated in our party platform this past year. “Judge O’Connor, in my view, will bring new luster and new strength to the Supreme Court. I feel certain that her term upon the bench will be one of the proudest legacies of my presidency.” In its 1980 platform, the Republican Party promised to “work for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Judge O’Connor was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, 18 months ago by Gov. Bruce Babbitt. She was elected as a county judge in 1975 and has received one of the highest
Washington
Sandra D. O’Connor’s opinions during her 18 months as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent.
They do not shed much light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A former Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate, O’Connor is widely regarded as
conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record, however.,has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge.
A review of O’Connor’s 30 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed
none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial constitutional issues the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and
the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Thus it appears to be far too early to determine whether the ideologically divided court will become more conservative or more liberal if and when Judge ‘ O’Connor fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Potter Stewart, who has been viewed as a moderate leaning to the conservative side of the court’s philosophical balance.
Attorney General William French Smith said Tuesday after President Reagan had announced Judge O’Connor as his choice to be the first woman to sit on the
PHOENIX – Sandra O’Connor, selected by President Reagan to become the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had a meteoric rise through the political and judicial ranks of Arizona, where she was raised on a cattle ranch. Colleagues of the 51-year-old Republican, who grew up in the small mining and ranching community of Duncan, say she has impressed them with a sharp mind, efficiency and conservative views. Her voting record in the state Legislature, her opinions from the bench, and comments from those who have worked with and against her, show her as a qualified magistrate who • has developed a conservative approach to most issues. But O’Connor – who graduated third in her 1952 class at Stanford University Law School – has maintained the respect of liberal adversaries. “I think she’s more of a strict constructionist. She believes the government ought to stay out of affairs.” said Frank Lewis, a Phoenix attorney specializing in minority affairs and who has worked with the Arizona Civil Liberties Union. “She’s got a fine legal mind, and she’s had a devoted life of public service in Arizona. As a judge she was not one to have your case before if you were trying to break new ground. But I do not believe she’s another Rehnquist. I don’t believe she’s that far right.” Justice William Rehenquist was in O’Connor’s law school class and ranked first. Alan Matheson, dean of the Arizona State University College of Law, said there “is a tendency to classify” O’Connor “as politically
In naming the first woman to be on the nation’s highest court, President Reagan has picked a well-regarded Arizona judge who is widely praised for her scholarship, common sense and reluctance to allow personal opin ions sway her interpretation of the law. Colleagues in the home state of Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, a judge on the state’s intermediate-level Court of Appeals, described her as a jurist who would not be an activist for social change, but nonetheless would make her presence known among the eight rnen on the Supreme Court. “She is obviously a conservative,” said one Phoenix attorney who asked not to be identified, “but she’s a thinking conservative who is compassionate and very concerned about people.” Among friends and foes alike, the consen sus appeared to be that O’Connor would be an “excellent” addition to the court who is well-qualified to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart regardless of her sex. As to where she would fit on the nine-member court, most of her peers and colleagues declined to speculate, although her conservative background made it clear that she would not be joining the dwindling liberal bloc on the court. ‘One Can Never Tell’ One former Arizona law professor who has
WASHINGTON – In a historic decision, President Reagan Tuesday noml• nated Arizona appeals court Judge San• dra D. O’Connor to be the first woman justice of the Supreme Court – a selection lavishly praised by women’s organizations which frequently have been at odds with the president but condemned by some or his most conservative supporters. In personally making the announcement in the White House press room, Reagan praised the 51-year-old O’Connor as “truly a person ror all seasons, possessing those unique qualities or temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” If confirmed by the Senate, she would succeed newly retired Associate Justice Potter Stewart. Hers is the first Supreme Court nomination since 1975, when President Gerald Ford appointed Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, t and the first woman In the court’s 191 year history. Reagan will not formally send the nomination to the Senate until an FBI background check on O’Connor ls completed. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Strom Thurmond, RS.C., has not set a date for the confirmation hearings. They could come in the four weeks lert before the month-long August recess, or be delayed until September. The president wants the Senate to hold Its hearings and vote on the nomination by the first Monday in October, when the next Supreme Court term begins. O’Connor, a Republican who formerly ‘was majority leader
The first nomination of a women for the Supreme Court won applause from feminist groups in the Valley and around the nation. The nomination was saluted by Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization of Women, who said “we believe it’s a victory for the women’s movement.” “That she would be sympathetic to women’s rights would be very significant” because recent Supreme Court votes on issues in this area have been close, Smeal said. Iris Mitgang, head of the National Women’s Political caucus, declared “women are breaking the barrier of nearly 200 years of exclusion in decision-making in our nation. Justice O’Connor’s nomination will be a major step in moving toward equal justice … ” Cindy Maybeck, an NWPC spokeswoman, said the group was “satisfied” with O’Connor’s positions on “issues that are of concern to us” like “freedom of choice” on abortion and the ERA. Valley spokesmen for NOW praised the nomination as “a great victory.” “On the heels of 180 pro-ERA rallies around the nation this represents a significant step for women,” said the Arizona coordinator for NOW, whose only name is Baker. “We are very pleased to hear of this appointment.” Baker praised O’Connor as a “strong supporter of the ERA” who sponsored pro-ERA bills in 1972 and 1973 and who “spearheaded the effort to make Arizona laws uniform with regard to the sexes.”
Experience on trial bench expected to help nominee
Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor would take a qualification to the U.S. Supreme Court shared by only one other current justice – experience as a trial judge. That experience can be of “inestimable value” to the Supreme Court, several . U.S. District Court judges said Tuesday. Judge O’Connor’s tenure as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge “can be a major contribution (to the Supreme Court),” U.S. District Judge Valdemar Cordova said. He served with her in the Maricopa County Superior Court. “I believe it is important to have a good balance on the Supreme Court,” he said. “The addition of Judge O’Connor can provide that balance. She can shed the light of her trial court experience on the proceedings of the Supreme Court.” Cordova said trial judges must make decisions “in the heat of battle .” They do not have “the lu:r.ury of contemplation” afforded appellate judges. “Almost any competent lawyer can take a court transcript and pick it apart after the fact,” he said. “So-called Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy.” Cordova prai sed Mrs. O’Connor ‘s “knowledge of th e law and e:r.perience on the bench” and said it would be of “inestimable value to t he Supreme Court.” Presiding U.S. District Court Judge Carl A. Muecke agreed that trial e:r.perience “can be an important addition to the Supreme Court, especially in correctly ascertaining just how far an appellate court can go and what the limits of an appellate
WASHINGTON In the long run. the most significant fact about Arizona’s Court of Appeals Judge p~ndr~ Day O’Connor may turn out to benot that she is a woman but that she has served as a state legislator and state judge. O’Connor’s long experience at the state level 1s almost as unusual for the modern-day Supreme Court as is her gender. For the last quartercentury, virtually every person appointed to the high court has come through the same channels : a federal judgeship, a federal government job inWashington or a nationally prominent law practice. Not since Justice William J. Brennan Jr . came to Washington from the New Jersey Supreme Court tn 1956 has any court appointee had experience in a state court system. None of the members of the current court has everserved in a state legislature. If O’Connor gives the Justices a ground-level view of how state courts and legislatures operate, her voice could be highly influential. She could, in fact, become a powerful advocate of President Reagan’s oft-stated desire to give greater power to the states. The Supreme Court is asked regularly to judge the validity of laws enacted by state legislatures and rulings by state courts. Generally, the justices fine it much easier to rule unconstitutional the actions of those state bodies than the laws enacted by Congress or the actions of federal agencies. In the court term that has just ended, for example, the Supreme Court moved further in the direction of judicial restraint than at any time in
WASHINGTON (AP) – Although she proved herself-a scholarly and lucid writer in her short tenure on Arizona’s appeals court, Judge Sandra O’Connor never really faced the hot legal and constitutional issues of the day. An analysis of nearly all the opinions she’s written in 1½ years on the state bench shows that she dealt mainly with routine matters, such as workmen’s compensation and divorces. That means her supporters and detractors must look elsewhere for the views of President Reagan’s nominee to become the first female member of the Supreme Court – particularly in the areas of abortion and women’s rights. For some, that search already ls over.
Within hours of Tuesday’s announcement, the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group announced they would oppose the nomination of · the Republican jurist. A spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee said the opposition would be based on stances O’Connor took as a member of the Arizona state Senate. But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said O’Connor had told the president “she ls personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorrent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.”
Although she declined to discuss “substantive issues” pending her confirmation, O’Connor told a news conference in Phoenix Tuesday she has special “appreciation for the legislative process.” That would square with Reagan’s insistence that
