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.
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
REACTION IS MIXED
Senate Seems Favorable but Opposition Arises on Abortion Stands
WASHINGTON, July 7 – President Reagan announced today that he would nominate Sandra Day O’Connor, a 51-year-old judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, to the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would become the first woman to serve on the Court.
”She is truly a ‘person for all seasons,’ ” Mr. Reagan said this morning, ”possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual Remarks on Court post, page A12. capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.”
White House and Justice Department officials expressed confidence that Judge O’Connor’s views were compatible with those espoused over the years by Mr. Reagan, who has been highly critical of some past Supreme Court decisions on the rights of defendants, busing, abortion and other matters.
Some Quick Opposition
From the initial reaction in the Senate, it appeared her nomination would be approved. However, her record of favoring the proposed Federal equal rights amendment and having sided once against antiabortion interests while she was a legislator provoked immediate opposition to her confirmation by the National Right to Life Committee, Moral Majority and other groups opposed to abortion.
At a brief news conference in Phoenix, Judge O’Connor declined to explain her views, saying that she intended to leave such matters to her confirmation hearings before
WASHING TON – Her name came up in “chit chat” a month ago but it was only after an int~rview in the Oval Office that President Reagan decided Sandra O’Connor was his choice for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, White House officials said yesterday. The process that led to the historic decision to name the first woman to the high court was affected by many factors, including the assassination attempt against the president. Also figuring in was Reagan’s campaign promise to name a woman to the high tribunal at one of his first opportunities, although aides insist the president was looking for – and fuund – the best qualified person to fill the vacancy. Since Reagan’s announ cement . that be will send O’Connor’s name to the Senate for confirmation, a picture has emerged of how the administration reacted to Justice Potter Stewart’s declaration that he would retire. The president made the final deci- sion Monday afternoon, culminating a process that began late in March, when Stewart informed Attorney General William French Smith that he planned to resign his seat on the bench at the end of the term. Smith told reporters yesterday that he began considering possible replacements the moment Stewart, 66, mentioned his plans. But he said be held off informing the president of the impending court vacancy because “we had a shooting problem” – the March 30 attempt on Reagan’s life.
WASHINGTON, July 7 – Anti-abortion groups today denounced President Reagan’s decision to nominate Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, but initial reaction in the Senate, which will vote on confirmation, was favorable.
”I commend the President for the courage of his decision,” said Howard H. Baker Jr., the Senate Republican majority leader. ”I am delighted with his choice, and I pledge my full support for her confirmation by the full Senate.”
The National Right to Life Committee, an amalgam of anti-abortion lobbying groups in the 50 states, said that it would mobilize its members to ”prevail upon senators to oppose this nomination.” The committee said that Judge O’Connor was ”pro-abortion” as a member of the Arizona State Legislature.
Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, said that the nominee, as a legislator, voted in 1974 not to allow an anti-abortion resolution out of caucus, thus killing it. The resolution asked Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus except when the mother’s life was in danger, and allowed abortions in the case of rape.
Dr. Gerster based her statement of Judge O’Connor’s record on that and other votes, which were characterized as ”pro-abortion,” on newspaper accounts and the recollections of other legislators, she said. Before 1975, the State Legislature kept no records of committee, subcommittee or caucus votes.
”We feel betrayed by the President,” said Paul Brown
The spectators backed away to make a path in the crowded courtroom for a demure lady with a trademark pageboy haircut who had just become an immortal in American history . Ninety minutes earlier, Sandra Day O’Connor , a 51- year-old Arizona Court of Appeals judge, had become the first woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. National and local press representatives squeezed microphones and bulky video equipment into Judge O’Connor ‘s courtroom for a hastily organized press conference on the nomination. Tears welled in the eyes of her oldest son, Scott as her family listened to minutes of applause after Judge O’Connor’s brief press statement. “If confirmed,” she said, “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.” The judge, who, before Tuesday, was obscure to most non-Arizonans , called the appointment “momentous.” In a televised announcement, Reagan said, “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 (justices) who have preceded her.” Urging speedy bipartisan Senate confirmation , Reagan – said naming a Supreme Court justice is “the most awesome appointment ” within his powers. “Those who sit on the Supreme Court interpret the laws of our land and truly do leave their footprints on the sands of time, long after
PHOENIX, Ariz. (AP) – Here is the text of most of the news conference held yesterday by Judge Sandra O'Connor,…
Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s place in history is already secure, based on today’s announcement that she will be President Reagan’s nominee as the first woman on the United States Supreme Court.
But if her past is prologue, after her Senate confirmation Judge O’Connor might well go on to leave even larger ”footprints on the sands of time,” as Mr. Reagan, quoting Longfellow, described the mark of United States Justices. Thus far in her 51 years, Judge O’Connor has compiled an impressive list of academic, civic, political and legal achievements.
”She’s finished at the top in a lot of things,” said Mary Ellen Simonson of Phoenix, who was a legislative aide when Mrs. O’Connor was majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, the first woman in the nation to hold such a leadership position.
”She has a reputation for excelling,” Mrs. Simonson continued. ”As a result she’s been one of the state’s leading role models for women. Now she’s a national role model.”
Judge O’Connor, who currently sits on the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, refused this afternoon to discuss ”substantive issues” when she met with reporters in Phoenix. And, because of her short, 18-month tenure on the appeals court and its somewhat limited docket, she has faced few of the nettlesome issues routinely taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Nevertheless, her past and her acquaintances provide some insights into her mind and personality.
She is said, by friend and foe alike
By LARRY NATHANSON ”IT’S HARD to play the male chauvinist with Judge O’Connor,” said her former boss. “Her strong talent is too well respected,” said Chief Justice Laurance T. Wren of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Sandra O’Connor goes from a court where she is the only woman among eight men to the U.S. Supreme Court where she will be the only woman among eight men; the first woman to break into the old boys’ club in almost 200 years of the court’s history. And when Sandra O’Connor speaks, her former boss suggests the Supreme Court justices behave like actors in an E.F. Hutton commercial. “They should listen because Judge O’Connor has something to say,” says Justice Wren. “She has a keen Intelligence, extensive knowledge of the law, Is outspoken on the issues and when she speaks she’s fully prepared and fully informed.” Yesterday, President Reagan named Mrs. O’Connor, 51, to fill the seat of retiring Justice Potter Stewart. Within minutes of the announcement her colleagues on Arizona’s highest court showered her with the ungrudging compliments of big brothers but with none of the condescension. “She has a razor sharp mind which, combined with a steady temperament, , makes her well-suited for the tough questions that would be presented to a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, said Appeals Court Judge Donald Froeb. “A hard-working bright lady. An excellent Judge, an asset,” said Judge Eino Jacobson. “We’re sorry to lose her, but there is such a feeling of excitement and elation here that
President Reagan’s choice of Sandra D. O’Connor as a Supreme Court nominee was surrounded by extraordina ry secrecy, including finding a location to mtcrview candidates that was safe from discovery by reporters. In deference to Justice Potter Stewart’s desire to keep his resignation private until mid-June, top Justice Department and White House officials were told to begin a search for nominees on a contingency basis, without learning that a vacancy was imminent. Justice Department officials who asked not to be named said Tuesday that Stewart met privately with Attor• ney General William French Smith in late March, less than a week before President Reagan was shot March 30. Stewart told Smith he was retiring but did not want to make it public then. As the selection process intensified, in deference to Stewart and later to preserve the announcement for Reagan to make, Smith ordered one of his aides to arrange for a meeting place where top Justice Department officials could interview candidates without being observed by reporters. The aide was not told who was being interviewed. The same secret location was used on the afternoon of June 30 for an interview with O’Connor by Smith, White House chief of staff Jim Baker, his deputy Michael Deaver, presidential counsellor Edwin Meese, and White House counsel Fred Fielding. None of those in the June 30 meeting would say it it was held at a house, government office or hotel room. In an interview, Fielding declined to disclose the location
WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, doesn’t fit easily into any mold. Though described by friends and associates as politically conservative, she has avoided ideological labels during almost six years as a state trial and appeals court judge in Arizona while winning widespread praise for her careful, concise and judicious approach to legal issues. AND DURING four years as Republican majority leader of the state Senate in the early 1970s, she took several liberal stands – particularly on women’s issues – that already have evoked angry opposition to her nomination from right-wing political groups. “A person for all seasons,” is the way President Reagan described this 51-year-old Arizonan in announcing he wanted her to break the 191-year, male-only tradition of the high court. That view was resoundingly and repeatedly echoed during interviews with some of the people who know Judge O’Connor best. “SANDRA IS NOT a crusader on any issue,” said William Jacquin, who heads the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and was president of the state Senate when Judge O’Connor was majority leader from 1971-1974. “One of her great attributes is that she faces each issue as a problem and then looks for the best possible solutions.” Robert Broomfield, presiding judge of the Maricopa County (Phoenix) Superior Court, where Judge O’Connor served from 1975 until she was named to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979, said “she believes in following the law.
PRESIDENT REAGAN made U.S. history yesterday by appointing the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In a brief statement to reporters at the White House, Mr Reagan confirmed that he bad chosen Mrs Sandra O’Connor, a Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, to succeed Justice Potter Stewart, who retired last month. Mrs O’Connor, 51, who has been described as “a judicial conservative but flexible,” now faces final clearance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Senate confirmation. The choice of a woman fulfills a campaign commitment by the President. But he stressed yesterday that he was not putting her name forward simply because she was female. That would not h ave been fair to women or to future generations. The President described Mrs O’Connor as ” truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good.” The appointment could be the first of several opportunities that Mr Reagan will have to stamp his conservative beliefs on the face of American society-a chance denied to President Carter, who made no Supreme Court appointments. Service on the court is for life, unless a justice chooses to retire, and five of its nine members are now over 70. The importance of the Supreme Court in moulding American society is often underestimated outside the U.S., where attention tends to focus on Presidents and politicians. An active Republican, Mrs O’Connor served two full terms in the
Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination to be the first sister among the brethren of the U.S. Supreme Court is certainly the biggest “first” in the 51-year-0ld jurist’s life. But the Arizona Court of Appeals judge is no novice when it comes to breaking new ground. From becoming the first female director in the 92-year history of the board of the First National Bank of Arizona in 1971 (now First Interstate Bank), to being picked in 1973 to lead the Senate majority in the Legislature, O’Connor has compiled ~’I impressive list of accomplishments. A… Arizona native, Sandra Day was born March 26, 1930, and grew up on her parents’ Lazy-B Ranch in Greenlee County along the New Mexico border. At age 16, she headed for Stanford University, where she received her undergraduate degree in economics and then entered the university’s law college, graduating third in the 1952 graduating class. Top honors that year were taken by William Rehnquist, who went on to practice law in Phoenix and, in 1972, become a Supreme Court justice. O’Connor was a member of the board of editors of the Stanford Law Review and graduated with the Order of the Coif. Stanford Law School Dean Charles Meyers said yesterday that the appointment of O’Connor is “marvelous for the country, for Stanford, and for the law school.” Meyers said O’Connor is “a woman of great ability; tremendous balance and good political understanding.” Emeritus Professor John Hurlbut of the law school said he remembered O’Connor well from his classes
The first woman to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court declared herself ”extremely honored and happy” today but told reporters at a hastily called 15-minute news conference, ”I can’t address myself to substantive questions pending confirmation.”
”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,” Judge Sandra Day O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals said in a brief statement.
Judge O’Connor, who has a reputation for being calm in the most difficult courtroom situation, appeared not only very happy but also a little nervous as she spoke to reporters in the courtroom.
She said the news of her appointment made today ”a momentous day in my life and the life of my family.” She was flanked by her husband, John Jay O’Connor 3d, a Phoenix lawyer; her three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay, and other members of the court.
Although Judge O’Connor spoke with President Reagan for about 15 minutes last week, the news of her appointment came as something of a surprise to her. Background Similar to Rehnquist’s
As late as Saturday, she told a group of friends that she thought the chance of her appointment was remote, partly because of the similarity between her background and that of Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, another Arizonan. Judge O’Connor was graduated third in the Stanford University Law School class in which Justice William Rehnquist
Change anticipated •a woman WASHINGTON (AP) – What physical changes would the marble temple the Supreme Court calls home undergo if Sandra D. O’Connor becomes its first female justice? “Absolutely none,” court spokesman Barrett McGurn said Tuesday, minutes after President Reagan nominated Judge O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals to the nation’s highest court. But a rumor persists among court employees that a bathroom fixture “inappropriate” for women will be removed from a small restroom just off the justices’ conference room. The court officially dropped the “Mr. Justice” designation from titles last November, choosing instead just plain “Justice” before the names of members. Speculation was that the change, made without explanation or fanfare, was aimed at making thing.s less complicated in the event of a woman joining the court. If confirmed by the Senate, O’Connor will become the first woman in the court’s 191-year history to serve as a justice.
The Uniied States Supreme Court, after 191 years and 101 male justices, apparently will join the mainstream of U;S. life with the appointment of Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, the high court’s first woman justice. The breaching of the last male bastion in the federal government is as splendid as it is overdue. What’s really surprising is that the nation’s first woman justice has the backing of Ronald Reagan, a president whose party last year reversed 40 years of backing for an equal rights amendment. Reagan has been under fire recently for what even supporters admit is a dismal record of appointments: Only 42 women . among the 390 appointees that so far have required Senate confirmation. But, Reagan has a promising prospect. A graduate (along with Justice Rehnquist) of Stanford University Law School, O’Connor is thought a good lawyer, a scholarly writer and a superior jurisL She has an interest in the outdoors and a, background in civic and charitable causes. In his announcement of Judge O’Connor’s nomiria- . tion, President Reagan called her “a person for all seasons.” He noted that she possesses “those unique qualities of temperament, fairness and intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘Brethren’ who have preceded her.” Reagan chose O’Connor despite pressures from groups who fear her approach to women’s rights’ issues. On the other hand, women’s groups such as the National Women’s Political Caucus cheered
ombined News Services Washington-President Reagan, a break with 191 years of tradition, yesterday ~ominated Judge Sandra Day O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals to be the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. The nomination, in fulfillment of a campaign promise to name a woman to one of the first vacancies on the nation’s highest court, was hailed by women’s groups. But it also drew immediate fire from some of the President’s conservative allies, including the politically potent Moral Majority, which says O’Connor has taken stands favoring abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. Calling the 51-year-old O’Connor “a person for all seasons,” Reagan brushed aside the criticisms of antiabortion groups, some of which plan a campaign against her confirma-. ,tion. “I am completely satisfied with her,” a smiling Reagan said as he announced her appointment in the White House press briefing room. Reagan urged the Senate to give “swift bipartisan confirmation” to her “so that, as soon as possible, she may take her seat on the court and her place in history.” Early reaction from the Senate indicated that her confirmation would be easy. Attorney General William French Smith said he hoped the FBI checks on O’Connor could be completed so that the actual nomina: tion could be sent to the Senate in less than four weeks. Referring to his campaign pledge to make one of his first Supreme Court appointments “the most qualified woman I could possibly find,” the” President said he was
WASHINGTON – President Reagan Tuesday nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, an Arizona appeals court judge, to be the first woman to wear the robes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice. As the president put it in an announcement in the White House press room: “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.” O’CONNOR, WHO will succeed retiring Justice Potter Stewart if she is confirmed by the Senate, responded in Phoenix: “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…”
Reagan said the appointment kept a campaign promise he made last Oct. 14. He had pledged then that “one of for the U.S. Supreme Court, Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find.” The president said Tuesday that he had not meant that “I would appoint a woman merely to do so. That would not be fair to women, nor to future, generations of all Americans whose lives are so deeply affected by the decisions of the court. “Rather, I pledged to appoint a woman who meets the very high standards demand of all court appointees.” SMILING HAPPILY at her Phoenix press conference, O’Connor avoided giving her views on current legal and political issues such as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. She explained that
WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor – the “person for all seasons” chosen to become the first woman to serve on the 191 year-old U.S. Supreme Court – is a solid Republican who knows which way the political winds blow. O’Connor, 51, an Arizona native reared on a cattle ranch, already faces opposition from anti-abortion groups for what they view as a pro-abortion position when she served in the Arizona Senate. And her flirtation with the Equal Rights Amendment – she later withdrew her support for the ERA – will also come in for criticism from some conserwtive groups. O’Connor, now a state appeals court judge, would bring legisla- tive and judicial credentials to the high court bench. Feminists are heartened by the fact that in her final term in the state Senate she was elected majority leader – the first woman in the nation to hold such a leadership post. THE MOTHER of three sons, O’Connor is married to a Phoenix lawyer, John O’Connor. She graduated third in her class from Stanford University Law School in 1952. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, an Arizona native, was first in that class. She served In the state Senate from 1969, when she was appointed to fill a vacancy, to 1975, winning election to two full terms representing a wealthy Phoenix suburb. In 1972, soon after Congress passed the ERA, O’Connor spoke on the state Senate floor, urging ratification. But when she learned that Arizona’s two U.S. senators opposed the measure, her enthusiasm faded and the Issue died
