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.
Gavel to gavel coverage of Sandra O ‘ Conno r Senate confirmation hearings will be recorded live on tape and re -broad casted on KAET/Channel 8, Septembe r 9, 10, and 11 beginning at 7 p.m. KAET, the public television affiliate in Phoenix, is producing the coverage on an exclusive basis for the . Arizona market and will also transmit the program via the Westar I satellite to all public television stations and their affiliated cable channe ls. The
What first woman candidate might face Page AS WASHINGTO! 1t;PII – Sandra O’Connor, the Arizona ;tate appeals court judge President Rea~an has_ nominated to become the first woman Supreme Court Justice, today reiterated her opposition to abortion and tried to justify for conservative senators her past legislative votes that have drawn strong opposition. . While anti-abortion pickets demonstrated outside the Senate Office Buildmg. O’Connor made a histOric appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee that will pass on her qualifications and faced criticism that her votes a member of the Arizona Senate showed ~he favored abortion . -My own viev. m the area of abortion is that I am opposed to it as a matter of birth control or otherwise,” she said. “The subject of abortion is a valid one m my view fo~ legis!ativ;, action subject to any constitutional restrarnts or limitations. Answering tho? questions of committee chairman Strom Thurmond. R.S.C., O’Connor said she opposed urgrng Congress to launch an anti-abortion constitutional amend ment in 1974 because she thought the subject needed more thoughtful consideration. , She. testified that she opposed another anti-abortion bill I . as the Arizona Senate majority leader because, in her vi~w, it had been inappropriately attached as a rider to an entll’ely ‘ different bill by the Arizona House. O’Connor said she supported a 1973 bill to widen public knowledge of contraceptive practices. But she added that as a Supreme Court justice
W ASlilNGTON – Although air proval of her nomination to the Supreme Court is all but certain, Sandra O’Connor faces possible hostile questioning on her views on abortion and equal rights at her confirmation hearing today. In addition to President Reagan – who chose the 51-year-old Arizona judge as his first nominee to the high court – Mrs. O’Connor has powerful bipartisan support from her two homestate senators, Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Dennis DeConcini. They are expected to help smooth the way to Senate confirmation of Mr.s O’Connor, the first woman ever to be named to the Supreme Court. But conservative groups have made it clear they will not acquiesce in her nomination without a fight. Mrs. O’Connor’s chances received a boost when the American Bar Association rated her “qualified” to serve on the high court. She meets the “highest standards of judicial temperment [sic] and integrity,” the ABA’s judicial reviewing panel said in a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Strom Thurmond, R-.S.C.
But, the panel added, “Her professional experience to date has not been as extensive or challenging as that of some other persons who might be available for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The ABA committee gave Mrs. O’Connor its second highest rating — “qualified,” it said,” after considering her outstanding academic record, her demonstrated intelligence and her service as a legislator, a lawyer and a trial and appellate judge.”
Brooksley Landau,
WASHINGTON – Anti-abortion lobbyists ap• _pear to be the only ones opposing Senate confirmation of Sandra O’Connor of Phoenix as the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins a •Ulree-day hearing on President Reagan’s nominaton M Judge O’Connor to succeed Justice Potter :S~;who retired July 3. , The hearings will. be televised on KAET, Channel 8, beginning at 7 p.m. today, Thursday and Friday. Several ardent opponents of legalized abortion are scheduled to appear before the 18-member committee to speak against Judge O’Connor’s confirmation. The~ base their opposition largely on the belief that her voting record in the Arizona Senate from 1969 to 1975 does not establish unequivocal support for the right-to-life movement. Political observers, however, expect their testi• mony fo have little influence on the committee’s vote. “I am not aware of any senator who has firmly planted his foot and said he is not going to vote for her,” said Bob Maynes, a spokesman for Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., a Judiciary Committee member. Maynes said the lobbyists who oppose Judge O’Conner seem to be misinterpreting her public record on the abortion issue. ”She; has said many times that she is personally opposed to abortion,” he said. “What she will not do, understandably, is commit herself in advance on hypothetical questions about what she would do if such.and-such a case came before the Supreme Court, and that’s apparently what has some people
WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate is cranking up its advice and consent machine again as the Judiciary Committee prepares to consider the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. The outcome, as usual, is pretty well assured. Mrs. O’Connor is expected to be asked more than the usual number of questions. But in the end, she is expected to be recommended for confirmation and confirmed by the full Senate. The process has been the subject of debate ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1778. [sic] It was denounced as a ”rubberstamp” as recently as 1977. But it survives with little change. Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint the principal officers of the federal government “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The provision itself was a compromise. Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted to give the Senate the power to make the appointments. Others wanted the president to have it. The result left the standards for confirmation vague, as they remain today. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist that, “If an ill appointment should be made, the executive for nominating, and the Senate, for approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace.” According to a study by Common Cause, a group which monitors the government on behalf of what it considers the public interest, the Senate received 133,302 nominations during the 94th Congress. . The nominees all are not as controvers
WASHINGTON – Everyone wants to be on hand here this week to see Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor become the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. ‘The hearings will be thronged. The senators who will question Judge O’Connor will be on their best behavior. There is a lot riding on all this. Except for the zealots of the so-called Moral Majority, Judge O’Connor has emerged as a temporarily untouchable force. She is not your ordinary political story. In this one, the Republicans are not lined up on one side and the Democrats on the other. The idea of having a woman on the Supreme Court now seems like something we just can’t do Without. So, because of the hearings which begin here on Wednesday, the name of Sandra O’Connor will be on front pages all over the country, not just in Arizona. Wherever you went in Phoenix last week, there was talk about Judge O’Connor. Nowhere did I hear anyone speak a word against the appointment. Not once did I hear anyone question Judge O’Connor’s credentials to sit on the highest-ranking court in the nation. Some stories take on this quality. It was that way when Hank Aaron was closing in on Babe Ruth. It was the same way when Secretariat had won two legs of the Triple Crown. I heard people talking about Judge O’Connor last week in places like McDonald’s and Durant’s and Fed Mart and even in the ski lodge up in Flagstaff. The man next t.o me on the plane flying here late Monday night wanted t.o talk about her. He couldn’t believe
w ASHINGTON (AP) – Jerry Falwell , leader of the fundamentalist Moral Majority, will testify next. week in opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first woman Supreme Court justice . Mrs . O’Connor, who has been in Washington since Monday, will lead off hearings next Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee which is considering her nomination. Once her appearance ls over, an additional 25 persons have been scheduled to appear either in support or opposition to President Reagan’s first high court nominee, according to a witness list released Friday. The list includes Faliwell , and officials of a nwnber of anti-abortion groups , including tbe National Right to Life Committee, who oppose Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination because they believe she supports tbe Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Among those testifying in support of tbe nomination will be representatives of the American Bar Association, the National Organization for Women, the National Women’s Political Caucus, the National Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges and Dlok C. P. Lantz , a Florida federal appeals court judge. From Arizona will come Gov. Bruce Babbitt, once a potential political rival to Mrs. O’Connor, and 10 other legislators and other public officials. Over the last several days, Mrs . O’Connor has been preparing for tbe hearings by reading briefing books prepared by Justice Department officials, including testimony of previous Supreme Court
Sandra Day O’Connor will face painstaking scrutiny of her record as a state legislator and judge at confirmation hearings this week on her nomination as the Supreme Court’s first woman justice. Conservative forces that want President Reagan to withdraw the nomination of the Arizona appeals court judge have deluged the Senate Judiciary Committee with about 20,000 pieces of mail – mostly form letters – running 4-to-1 against her. But Senate leaders have predicted her confirmation, perhaps without dissent, because no senators are on record opposing her. This has not discouraged abortion foes, who contend that they will use the hearings as a forwn to show Reagan he “should never insult his friends again.” “No observer of this fight – and it is a fight – should judge by the final number of votes,” said Peter Gemma Jr. of the National Pro-Life Political Action Committee. O’Connor’s nomination is a “complete break of faith in light of the promises in the Republican platform,” which endorses “pro-life” judges, said Conservative Caucus head Boward Phillips . “Our duty is to keep faith with the unborn – even if we don’t get a single senator’s vote,” Phillips added. Sure to be aired at the hearings, which begin Wednesday, are data on her votes on state abortion bills-votes that are “consistenUy anti-life,” abor- . tion forces charge. . Also, the conservative groups claim O’Connor is too soft on crime, too liberal on women’s issues and has ignored conflicts of interest in voting on areas
A rizona Appeals J udge Sandra O’Connor is no shrinking violet. She’s fully able to handle her end of it during U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, which open Wednesday in the Senate. But the archconservatives will be in Washington in full force to cut her down because she isn’t fully in their camp on the abortion i’ssue and the doomed Equal Rights Amendment. Both are emotional issues. Judge O’Connor, because of her legal training , does not view important issues on an emotional basis. No competent judge does. Judge O’Connor is a political conservative . In her years in the Arizona Senate, and as the first woman majority leader, she amply demonstrated to my satisfaction that she supports a limited government, free enterprise and the lowest tax rate possible. But what bothers the Moral Majority is that she’s not a zealot like its members, that she believes there are some areas in life where human beings must make moral decisions for themselves . The Conservative Digest, in its August issue, includes two post cards that readers are asked to send to their senators in Washington. They are headed, “I strongly urge you not to support the Supreme Court nomination of Sandra O’Connor.” The digest’s publisher is right-wing extremist Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail fund-raising expert. “It is clear from her record in the Arizona Senate that she is a supporter of legalized abortion,” the post card contends. “Her choice is a violation of the 1980 Republican platform, which pledged
WASHINGTON (AP) – Moral s Majority leader Jerry Falwell will not be among several anti-abortionists ‘; who will testify next week against I Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination to become the first female Supreme Court justice. Falwell’s name was on a list of opposition witnesses released Friday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But his spokesman in Lynchburg, Va., said Falwell, who opposes abortion, has decided to reserve judgment. “He has decided not to testify at . the O’Connor hearing because it would be perceived in advance that he was opposed to the nomination,” Cal Thomas said. “Conceivably, if her answers are satisfactory, Falwell could speak in support of her nomination.” I t Judge O’Connor, who has been in _ Washington since Monday, will lead off the hearings next Wednesday before the Judiciary Committee. Another 25 persons have been scheduled to appear either in support or opposition to President Reagan’s first high court nominee. The list includes a number of antiabortion groups, including the National Right to Life Committee, which oppose Judge O’Connor’s nomination because they believe she supports the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Testifying in support of the nomination will be representatives of the American Bar Assoc~tion, the National Organization for Women, the National Women’s Political Caucus, the National Bar Association and the National Association of Women Judges. From Arizona, where Judge O’Connor is a judge and former legislator,
For the first time in the history of our country, the president has nominated a woman to the nation’s highest judiciary office. The office: ! / Supreme Court justice. The woman: Arizona’s Judge Sandra O’Connor. Prior to Senate confirmation, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct three days of hearings beginning Sept. 9. KAET-Channel 8 will chart the course of these landmark hearings with broadcasts taped live and aired at 7 p.m. Sept. 9, 10 and 11. During the hearings, we will hear testimonies from witnesses for and against the nomination, and Judge O’Connor’s responses to questions submitted by the 17-man Judiciary Committee. The questioning is expected to include a probe into Judge O’Connor’s past judicial decisions, any conflicts of interest and her views on the abortion issue. As a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals and former Republican leader of the Arizona Senate, Judge O’Connor’s nomination holds special significance to Arizonans. The Phoenix Gazette recognizes the importance of these events, not only for Arizona, but also for the entire nation. We are proud to sponsor this historic broadcast in conjunction with the Maricopa County Bar Association.
Most of the comedians and editorial cartoonists have had their day with the nomination of Arizona’s Sandra O’Connor to become the nation’s first female justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now it’s time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take over. Hearings are scheduled to begin Wednesday in Washington. We hope the committee comes to the conclusion that almost everyone else across the nation already reached: that President Reagan made one of the best choices possible when he selected O’Connor for the position. And after the committee has done its work, we hope speedy Senate confirmation will follow. There are still a few, of course, who have expressed concern about O’Connor’s supposed viewpoints in some areas, and we presume there are a few diehards who remain opposed to appointment to any woman as a ‘member of the nation’s highest court. But O’Connor’s viewpoints as a privat e citizen or as an Arizona state legislator 10 or 15 years ago, nor her sex, have little relationship to her actions as a judge. A judge must look at each case from a judicial viewpoint, and the record of her years at the superior court and appeals court levels shows clearly she understands and follows that dictum. She is knowledgeable in the law and has an abundance of judicial temperament . Too many judges in recent years have given the impress ion they are usurping the role of legislators, but O’Conn.or is not among those. In one of her statements to the committee which will consider her nomination,
WASHINGTON Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, will not testify Wednesday on the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor aa the first woman Supreme Court justice, his «Jganization said Fri- r’s appearance ends, an additional 25 people are scheduled to testify. The list includes a dhmber of anti-abortion groups, including the lfatior>:al Right to Life Oomm1ttee. • Among those support – the nomination will be representatives of the A):nerican Bar Associatton and the National Organization for Women. • From Arizona will ceme Gov. Bruce Babbitt and other legislators a,O.d public officials
Dallas (AP ) – A crowd of several thousand abortion 01r ponents was stirred to a frenzy as a 12-hour rally protesting the nomination of Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court drew to a close . The rally drew the leaders of America’s conservative movement – Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell , Equal Rights Amendment foe Phyllis Schlafly and evangelist James Robison. The protesters – estimated at 6,800 by organizers and at 4,000 by police – leaped to their feet and cheered Thursday night when speakers demanded that O’Connor , an Arizona appeals court judge, be removed from consideration for the seat because of her views on abortion. The crowd interrupted Moral Majority lead er Jerry Falwell three times with ovations as he warned that abortion could lead to America’s downfall. “America’s national sin is abortion,” Falwell said. “God will judge America, perhaps with Soviet missiles, if we don’J put an end to this biological holocaust.” Falwell, who spoke near the end of the rally organized by the Religious Roundtable, said he had promised President Reagan he would withhold comment on O’Connor’s nomination until after next week’s Senate confirmation hearings. But other speakers drew cheers and cries of “Amen” when they called for Reagan to withdraw the nomination and for O’Connor to remove herself from consideration. Schlafly, the anti-ERA crusader, told the crowd O’Connor’s pro-abortion stand as an Arizona legislator was ” out of step with the pro-family, pro-life policies on
DALLAS – Anti-abortion leaders urged Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor remove herself from consideration or that President Reagan withdraw her name before Senate confirmation hearings begin next week. Nellie Gray of March for Life assailed Judge O’Connor ‘s nomination at a news conference beginning a 12- hour rally by a coalition of conservative Christians. She called the upcoming confirmation process for the former Arizona legislator “fatally flawed.” Miss Gray said that if Reagan and Judge O’Connor ignore her group’s d~~ds , “The Senate should recog01ze 1~ duty as an advising and consentmg_ body to bring the import.ant questions abeut the nomination before the hearings and to get the full facts before the Senate .” …
…
The audience, which punctuated anti-abortion speeches with clapping, whistling and shouts of “Amen!” heard Mrs. Schlafly and others denounce Judge O’Conpor during a 12- PHYLLIS SCHLAFL Y hour rally Thursday. Mrs. Schlafly, who has campaigned against passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, called Judge O’Connor’s nomination by President Reagan a “blessing in disguise” because it “could arouse the nation to cut down the power of the federal courts.” MORAL Majority leader Jerry Falwell, who said be promised Reagan he would withhold public comment on Judge O’Connor’s nomination until after next week’s U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, focused on condemning abortion. “America’s national sin is abortion,” Falwell said. “God will judge America, perhaps with Soviet missiles, if we don’t put an end to this biological holocaust.” Organizers estimated the convention center crow …
DALLAS (AP) – Anti-abortion leaders urged yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor remove herself from consideration or that President Reagan withdraw her name before Senate confirmation hearings begin next week. Nellie Gray of March for Life assailed O’Connor’s nomination at a news conference beginning a 12-hour rally by a coalition of conservative Christians. She called the upcoming confinnation process for the Arizona judge “fatally flawed.” Gray said if Reagan and O’Connor ignore her ~roup’s deman~s’. “The Senate should recognize its out~ as an adv1smg and consenting body to bring the important questions about the nomination before the hearings and to get the full facts before the Senate.” _About 200 people showed up at a Rally for Choice to counter the anti-abortionists . Pro-choice activist Bill Baird told the crowd that the Moral Majority ‘s attempt to block O’Connor’s nomination was “tyrannical.” Baird challenged the Moral Majority’s founder, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, to a debate at a “celebration of freedom” get-together later in the day. Falwell was here for the conservative gathenng. Convention center officials said about 1,200 P:DPle were at the afternoon anti-abortion rally, with 6,800 attending the main evening event. Religious Roundtable President Ed McAteer organizer of the anti-abortion rally, said: “Here i~ a woman who has dealt out the death penalty, yet the official anti-death penalty crowd and the ACLU praise the nomination, and only right -to-life
TRIP PAID BY TAXPAYERS
State taxpayers apparently will get the bill when the governor and six legislators travel to Washington to testify at a Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor. At $358 each for round-trip airplane tickets and $75 per diem for four days, the public will pay about $4,600 to finance the trip for Gov. Bruce Babbitt and the legislators. Sens. Leo Corbet, R-Phoenix; Stan Turley, R-Mesa; and Alfredo Gutierrez, D-Phoenix; and Reps. Art Hamilton, D-Phoenix; and Donna Carlson West, R-Mesa, have been scheduled as witnesses. REP. TONY WEST, R-Phoenix, also has applied for trip expenses, but he said other business may keep him at home during the hearings, which are scheduled next Wednesday through Friday . Neither acting Auditor General Ron Wilson nor Legislative Council Director Greg Jernigan wanted to say whether the trip is official business or a political function. “I wouldn’t touch that with a 10- foot pole,” said Wilson, who works for the Legislature. “I’m not interested in being quoted,” Jernigan said. “But, frankly, when a federal body asks for testimony, there’s not much question in my mind that that’s official business.” Senate Comptroller Dennis Booher referred The Gazette to Corbet, who was not available. “CHECK WITH the president’s office,” Booher said. “I’m sure it isn’t Senate business.” Attorney General Bob Corbin, a Republican, said he was checking on the propriety of using public funds for the trip. “I don’t know
PHOENIX (AP)-State taxpayers apparently will foot the bill for about $4,00 next week to d the governor and up to six legislators to Washington to testify in behalf of Judge Sandra O’Connor. Gov. Bruce Babbitt and Sens. Leo Corbet, R-Phoenix; Stan Turley, R-Mesa, and Alfredo Gutierrez, D-Phoenix, and Reps. Art Hamilton, D-Phoenix, and Donna Carlson West, R-Mesa, are scheduled as witnesses. Rep. Tony ‘Yest, R-Phoenix, also is expected. to attend if other business does not keep him in Phoenix. state officials refused to say whether the trip would be considered official business or a political function. ,, “I wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot pole, said Auditor General Ron Wilson who works for the Legislature.
WASHINGTON (UPI) – Sandra O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice to be the first woman on the Supreme Court, shares a net worth of more than $1 million with her l~wyer husband, accor ding to documents filed Sept. 1. O’Connor, answering guestions for the Senate, also confirmed she is an advocate of the judicial restraint Reagan favors. The Constitution requires federal courts “s crupulously to avoid making law or engag ing in general superv ision of executive functions,” she sai d. The Senate Jud iciar y Comm ittee will hold hearings on her nomination Sept. 9-11, and it is expected O’Connor will be easily confirm ed despit e criticism from abortion opponents and New Right groups . Reagan announ ced his select ion of the 51-year -old Arizona Court of appeals judg e on Jul y 7, but waited Wltil late August to formally send her name to the Senate. The nomination dre w heated opposition based on Mrs. O’Connor’s ‘Otes on abortio n questions and he support of the Equal Rights Amendm ent while a member of the Arizona Senate. In answering a standa rd questionnaire for the jud iciary panel. O’Connor said she and her husband , J ohn. have a net worth of $1.1 mill ion. That places her in sam e financial league as Justice Lewis Powell and Chief Justice Warr en Burger , both millionnaires . Retired Justice Potter Stewar t – whom Mrs. O’Connor would replace – also had a net worth considerably in excess of $1 million. Most of the family wealth is in real estate and in her family ‘s Lazy 3 Ranch.
DALLAS – The president of the National Roundtable said a giant anti-abortion rally planned for today, featuring the Rev. Jerry Falwell, was organized in part in reaction to the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Sandra O’Connor. “The O’Connor nomination was part of the catalyst for the meeting,” Ed E. McAteer said. “Mrs. O’Connor’s legislative record is proabortion. I believe all the evidence shows she is pro-abortion.” McAteer, who heads the conservative organization, said he would like to see President Reagan take back the nomination of the Arizona judge , whose Senate confirmation hearings begin next week, but he did not have much hope that would happen. I Promoters said they expect more than 12,000 people to attend today’s meeting, featuring Falwell, , founder of the Moral Majority; Paul Weyrich, a conservative political fund-rpiser; Phyllis Schlafly, a opponent of the feminist movement ; and James Robison, a Fort Worth, Texas, evangelist. In addition, officials said the Roundtable’s state organizations will sponsor vigils today at federal buildings in every state capital and in major cities across the country. Judge O’Connor was in Washington on Wednesday, prepar ing for Senate hearings on her nomination . The Arizona appeals court judge flew to the nation’s capital Tuesday and said she planned to spend her time prepar – ing for three days of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. When asked if she expects much trouble from critics
WASHINGTON (AP) – Sandra O’Connor, in town a week early to prepare for Senate hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court, has disclosed that she and her husband are worth more than $1 million. . In a written response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, O’Connor endorsed “neutral” enforcement of equal rights and said she is “keenly aware of the problems associated with ‘judicial activism.”‘ “The separation of powers principle also requires judges to avoid substituting their own views of what is desirable in a particular case for those of the legislature,” she wrote. “Judges are not only not authorized to engage in executive or legislative functions, they are also ill-equipped to do so. Serious difficulties arise when a judge undertakes to act as an administrator or supervisor in an area requiring expertise, and judges who purport to decide matters of public policy are certainly not as attuned to the public will as are the members of the politically accountable branches.” O’Connor’s view on equal rights is likely to gladden opponents of affirmative action. ”The essence of equal justice under the law, in my view, is that neutral laws be applied in a neutral fashion,” she wrote. She said she has worked for equal rights for women by seeking repeal of “a nwnber of outmoded Arizon~ statutes” including one that barred women from working more than eight hours a day. She said she also developed model legislation to allow women to manage property held jointly with their
DALLAS (AP) – A coalition of conservative Christian groups plans a series of rallies to protest what they call the proabortion stance of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor. Organizers predicted today’s “Rally for Life,” the first in the series of anti-abortion gatherings, would draw about 10,000 people to the Dallas Convention Center. Coinciding with the Dallas rally will be a nationwide vigil and silent prayer for “victims of abortion” in state capitals and major cities at 3 p.m. EDT. Religious Roundtable President Ed McAteer said state representatives of his group will hold the vigils from steps of federal courthouses in each state capital. “If this thing goes as we think it will, she (Mrs. O’Connor) wm be appointed to the Supreme Court,” admitted McAteer, organizer of the Dallas Convention Center rally. “But we will continue to inform people more and more about abortion and her record.” He said the “catalyst” for the rallies was President Reagan’s support of Mrs. O’Connor, the first woman nominated to the nation’s highest court. “We have already won the debate about the O’Connor nomination,” McAteer said. “No one is malting comments whether she in fact is pro-abortloh, but rather If she has really changed her position since the time that she voted in the Legislature.” His organization claims that Mrs. O’Connor supported abortion bills “on at least two occasions” while a member of the Arizona Legislature. Since her nomination, Mrs. O’Connor has stated that she was
WASHINGTON (AP) – Sandra D. O’Connor, nominated by President Reagan to be the first woman on the Supreme Court, says she and her husband are worth more than $1.1 million. The sum, which would place her among the wealthiest members of the court, includes her home in Paradise Valley valued at $300,- 000 and a joint partnership interest with her husband in a private law firm worth $342,850. Judge O’Connor’s husband, John J. O’Connor III, is a senior partner in the firm of Fennemore, Craig, Von Ammon & Udall, one of Arizona’s largest. Judge O’Connor bas been a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals since 1979. THE financial statement was submitted last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins three days of public hearings on the nomination next Wednesday. Judge O’Connor arrived in Washington Tuesday for “isolated study and preparation” for her testimony at the hearings, a White House spokesman said today. Her nomination is expected to easily win Senate approval. In a statement to the committee, Judge O’Connor said she supports a limited role for the federal courts and is “keenly aware of the problems associated with ‘judicial activism.'” “THE separation of powers principle also requires judges to avoid substituting their own views of what is desirable in a particular case for those of the legislature,” she wrote. Judges are “ill-equipped” to. substitute their views for the executive or legislative branches, which are more “attuned to the public will” and more “politically
I t’s a superb appointment. Marvelous for the country, for Stanford, and for the Law School.” So reacted Law School dean Charles Meyers to the announcement that President Ronald Reagan had nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, ’51, LLB ’52. as the nation’s first woman Supreme Court justice . He added : “She’s a woman of great abilit y, tremendous balance, and a good political understand ing.” Meyers was not alone in his praise of the appointment of the 51-year-o ld Arizona jurist who seems certain to join law classmate William Rehnquist, ’48, LLB ’52. on the nation’s highest court. Teachers and classmates from both her undergraduate and law school days and faculty members and administrators who had come to know her during her later years of service on the Stanford Board of Trustees were almost unanimous in their approval. Sallyanne Payton, ’64. LLB ’68, an associate professor of law at the University of Michigan who served as a Stanfo rd Trustee with O’Connor, described her as having “a fine legal mind ” and “exceptionally good judgment.” She added: “She’s a smart, hardworking, judicious, warm, generous, unpretentious person. We were on opposite sides on some issues, but I thought she was careful and honest and at all times had the best interests of the institution at heart.” So convinced of her qualifications were those in the administration screening potential nominees that she was the only candidate to be personally interviewed by the President. In picking the Texas-born Arizona
DUNCAN – Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, arrived at noon Aug. 20 to visit her parents Harry and Ada Mae Day of the Lazy B. Ranch. Alan Day new to Phoenix to escort his sister to the ranch for a short visit. The main purpose of Judge O’Connor’s trip was to see her parents, whom she bad not been with since she was nominated as the first woman to the United States Supr_eme Court. O1.,;onnor said she bas such a tight schedule that her visit had to be brief at the Lazy B. She has to be in Washington for her confirmation bearing Sept. 9, JO & II, which will be held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When O’Connor called and indicated plans for a trip home to the Lazy B, Alan and Barbara Day decided to have a get-together for family and friends. The guests were present from 7-9 p.m. Thursday at the Ranch. The evening of special invited guests was brief, to allow the judge time with her parents alone. Sandra wanted to make sure she saw her parents before the confirmation in Washington, in case the Day’s were unable to make the trip. During the afternoon Ralph “Bug” Quinn and Claude Tippets of Franklin came to visit Sandra. Quinn has been a Lazy B employee for 60 years. He still worts at the ranch especially during round-up as the cook. Quinn was around Sandra while she was growing up and is a long time friend. Tippets is an old cowboy friend of the family. He has worked on the ranch for over 50 years and still worts there today. Tippets knew Sandra as a baby and while she grew up on the
President Reagan has broken precedent with every administration before him in announcing as his choice to succeed Justice Stewart Potter. Sandra Day O’Connor, who, if confirmed by the Senate, will be the first woman justice on the US Supreme Court. That the President has chosen as his nominee the first woman majority leader in a state legislature – and that the state is one where women were represented early on at high levels of elected and appointed office – is historically fitting. Most importantly, in nominating Sandra O’Connor, President Reagan has selected a candidate possessing every credential he has indicated was necessary to serve on the highest court of the land . I have known and respected Mrs. O’Connor for many years since I was Administrative Assistant to the Governor of Arizona, and she was Assistant Attorney General and assigned to represent the Governor ‘s office . In the mid-1970’s I had the opportunity once again to work closely with Sandra O’Con nor when she was majority leader in the State Senate. As Pima County Attorney, I had frequent occasion to visit the State Capitol during the creation of the Arizona Drug Con tr ol District. Sandra O’Connor was thorough and conservative in the Arizona State Senate – and she knew how to make it work. Because of her outstanding qualifications, I recommended her to the press before her name was mentioned publicly as a potential nominee. In announcing his decision – President Reagan characterized Mrs. O’Connor as a “person
Los Angeles (AP) – President Reagan has signed the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, the White House announced Wednesday. The nomination was being sent to the Senate, which is due back in session Sept. 9 following a five-week recess. The nomination of O’Connor is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Reagan had announced July 7 that he planned to nominate O’Connor, 51, a state appeals court judge in Arizona, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Justice Potter Stewart on July 3. The White House also said that Reagan has appointed Warren Clark Jr. as deputy representative on the economic and social council of the United Nations. Clark, 45, a native of Bronxville, N.Y., is currently financial attache and treasury representative at the American embassy in Ottawa. He will succeed Robert Kaufman.
Sandra Day O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice to fill the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, may already have done more for the liberation of women than she will ever do as the nation’s first woman justice. For her career demonstxates that a woman today need not forgo full- time motherhood in order to attain professional excellence. Women torn between career goals and maternal instincts can find in O’Connor’s example clear evidence that staying home with one’s children for a few years does not sideline one forever in the world of work. The official biography released by the White House
The confirmation of Sandra Day O’Connor as a member of the Supreme Court – which now seems certain – doesn’t mean simply that the high court will have its first woman member ever. O’Connor will also be the first Supreme Court justice chosen from state government during a quarter century in which the pendulum swung fast – and some say dangerously – toward federal dominance in American life. The record books show that prior to President Reagan’s selection of Mrs. O’Connor, an Arizona appeals court judge, no state jurist had been appointed to the court since President Eisenhower’s selection of William Brennan in 1956. Before that, one has to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover’s 1932 appointment of Benjamin Cardoza to find selection of a state judge. Moreover, Judge O’Connor is a former state legislator. In 1972, in fact, she became the first woman ever chosen to be a state Senate majority leader. Not a single sitting member of the Supreme Court has any state legislative experience at all. Will she provide a friendlier voice on the court for problems of state and local government? To hold back federal courts, for instance, from takeovers of substandard state prisons and mental hospitals unless absolutely necessary? To stop imposing remedies for alleged social injustices without any concept of the potentially immense costs for state and local taxpayers? Read her expressed opinions on federal-state relations and there’s no question where she’ll stand. In the current issue of the
LOS ANGELES – The police might never have arr ested Anthony Gordon for a motel robbery here if he had not ordered personalized liceme plates for his Corvette. They said: “IM EVIL.” A bystander at the robbery easily remembered the le~ters. Police quickly found Gordon’s car, the engine still warm. He became just one more victim of California’s great obsession, the personalized plate, an inadvertent aid to law enforcement, topic for sociologists and literary pastime for millions of summer vacationers traveling the highways. From JUEZA S h for female ud e on U.S. u reme o us c es1 e a n- ‘if s 1a Onu:=._~onaw1 o aa n omca’s illmd Corp., personalized plates have swept the Southwest, becoming one of the most visible signs of westerners’ unusual feelin~ about their automc>- biles and themselves. Every state now offers personalized plates to motorists who will pay an extra fee, but California has the greatest number and apparently the highest percentage by far. Tlrough June, California had issued 916,432 personalized plates, enough for nearly 7 per- , cent of the 13.2 million passenger cars in the state. The personalized plates have brought in several million dollars for a special state fund for anti-pollution and park projects, hence the term “environmental plates” for the personalized licenses here. They also forced the state motor vehicles department to install a complicated, computerized screening of objectionable plates. Officer Emanuel Padilla, a spokesman for the California
In The Star’s 128 years, its headlines have em blazoned women’s activities across its pages in many roles – as suffragettes, Civil War nurses, soldiers and spies, World War I Liberty Bond sellers, flappers, world war II riveters and bomber ferry pilots, West Point cadets and Navy admirals, ERAers, Right-to-Lifers, trend-setting first ladies, and Cabinet members. And now in the year of the paper’s demise, the first woman Supreme Court justice has been nominated. The story of women’s contributions to the Republic in the last century and a quarter is as much a part of its warp and woof as the exploits of its Molly Pitchers, Abigail Adamses and Dolley Madisons of an earlier era .. Peggy Eaton didn’t jump mto the Tidal Basin as our contemporary Fanne Foxe, whose midnight plunge toppled a tippling congressman, but she cut~ swath through Andrew Jacksons Cabinet circle that rocked Washington with whispers of scandal. And Abscam had nothmg on Rose O’Neal Greenhow, whose Confederate spy network, Just across the park from the White House, stretched across the Atlantic to England and the Continent. Liberation is not a new concept. The first women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848 was a forerunner of the Ms. era and the nationwide 1970s movement to pass the ERA amendment. Nor is the idea of a woman for president new. Belva Ann Lockwood tried it back in 1884. She was the first woman nominated for the office and actually got a few votes. In the years ahead, maybe another woman will
Seemingly polite practice by presidential nominees is really sabotage of Senate’s checks and balance
WASHINGTON – They are graciously termed ”courtesy calls,” but the practice of Presidential nominees’ private visits with Senators before confirmation hearings corrupts the constitutional requirement that the Senate provide advice and consent on Presidential appointments.
The practice, dating perhaps to the late 1960’s, is also degrading to nominees who may be pressured in a private conversation to discuss subjects that are, from the standpoint of the public interest, better dealt with in open hearings.
One newspaper reported on July 17 that ”the third day of Sandra O’Connor’s round of Congressional courtesy calls was capped by a session with conservative Senator Jesse Helms.” The public and other Senators do not know what President Reagan’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court said to Mr. Helms nor what Mr. Helms said to her.
Let it be writ large: I am not objecting to the nomination of Mrs. O’Connor. Rather, my objection is to the now common practice by which nominees request courtesy calls on Senators, who find it ungracious not to accept.
It is possible that these calls are purely social. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent a Senator from doing what comes naturally – asking an ambassadorial nominee, for example, to look carefully into a problem that some constituent may have in the country to which the ambassador is going.
And there is nothing to prevent
Remember Mary Crisp? She is the outspoken Arizona woman who rocked Ronald Reagan’s boat at the Republican National Convention last year. She clashed with Reagan over the Equal Rights Amendment, and her insubordination cost her the cochairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Now anot~er Arizm)a woman is in the limelight. She is Sandra D. O’Connor, who has been nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Colll’t. Mary Crisp and Sandra O’Connor have been friends for years. ‘f hey both worked for the Republican cause in the Phoenix area and their children attended the same schools. The two women have had long talks about political issues. And Mary Crisp thinks Reagan may be in for a surprise. She describes O’Connor as a moderate with a fiercely independent streak. Crisp also called her friend “a real civil libertarian.” As a judge, she demonstrated a devotion to detail. Sandra O’Connor has another surprising friend: Chief ,Justice Warren R Bur!!er. ‘I’he two became acquainted at judicial outing8. They got to know each other on a trip to England and a cruise on Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona border. Burger has told associates that O’Connor has a fine judicial mind. But the chief justice is fretting over one problem: O’Connor will be the first woman in history to sit on the Supreme Court, and there’s no ladies’ room in the justices’ chambers. Walloping Watt ‘- Interior Secretary James G. Watt has aroused the wrath of many important environmental grot1ps. According to repqrts,
Sen. Barry Goldwater recommended Judge Sandra O’Connor for the Supreme Court and was unamused when the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Moral Majority criticized her as not far enough right. With the blunt language of the Southwest, Goldwater growled, “Every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass.” That caused a bit of heartburn in the news business because Goldwater’s little word is listed as vulgar in the dictionary. Even so, three TV networks and many ;newspapers quoted Goldwater verbatim. The Christian Science Monitor, with its usual firmness, reported that Goldwater had said something “not printable in this newspaper.” The New York Times faced a dilemma: It wanted to run the story but it had to protect its genteel audience from a rude word. The Times could have written, “right in the a-” It used this dodge when President Carter threatened to whip Ted Kennedy’s a–. Or it could have slipped into indirect quotation, saying that Goldwater urged the faithful to chastise Falwell in the seat, rear or duff. Instead the Times wrote, “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the posterior.” Now this may seem a minor fudge but it isn’t. Every journalism student learns to put within direct quotes only what a person actually said. Worse yet, the Times is reputed to be the nation’s newspaper of record and is much consulted by librarians, historians and other dusty types. Someday one of them will come across the bowdlerized quotation and write a book proving that Goldwater
All of Arizona should be very proud of President Reagan’s choice of Judge Sandra O’Connor for the position of associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge O’Connor is the first woman so selected and she is from Arizona, but this selection is more importantly of a person whose intelligence, integrity and judicial capability is not dependent on her sex. A qualified person has been selected for a position that can only be enhanced by the demonstrated qualities of the candidate. The president is demonstrating what has made America great. -We are strong and great because we find the right person at the right time. Advancemen t is spurred by the many single-minded and vocal pressure groups , but people like Judge O’Connor demonstrate the courage and intelligence that stabilizes Amer• ica so that our advances can be real and lasting. Let us take pride and joy as Arizonans, as people, as American citizens, that again we have found the right person. MARILOU COY Phoenix
If Judge Sandra O’Connor is confirmed by the United States Senate as the first woman on the Supreme Court, she will go down in history as one of our most esteemed pioneers. We may even find her picture on a postage stamp someday. And to hear all the babble of nit-picking that is arising makes one wonder if even the motives of heaven would be questioned and subjected to the third degree. Mrs. O’Connor is a credit to the women of America. She is an example of that rare womankind who can carry a pitcher of water on both shoulders, an excellent mother, an excellent lawyer and a compassionate and brilliant human-being who has arisen to the height.a of awesome honor. Isn’t it about time that we look at personal integrity in out officials and have faith in their judgment instead of gagging on gnat.a and swallowing elephant.a? May we have more of Sandra O’Connor and her kind! CHARLOTTE ELDRIDGE SUTTER, Phoenix
DUNCAN – On July 22. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Day took time out of their busy s~hedule to be interviewed at their hbme on the Lazy B Ranch. Needless to say Harry and Ada Mae are very proud and overwhelmed with the honor that has been bestowed on their daughter Judge Sandra Day O’Connor. “The word spread quickly June 28 through Greenlee County and the entire nation, that Judge O’Connor had been nominated by President Reagan u the 1st women to be nominated to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Judge O’Connor spent many or her ‘ happiest days on the ranch riding horses and roping steers. Her parents Harry and Ada are natives of Arizona, they operate a 260 square mile cattle spread straddling the Arizona and New Mexico border. The LazyB Ranch has been in the Day family since 1881, thtree decades before Arizona became a State. Mr. Day said his father traveled from Vermont where he operated the Lazy B which is 670/o public domaine. The name was acquired because of the brand that was on the cattle when Sandra’s Grandfather purchased them in Mexico, the “B” lying down created the ‘ nnme Lazy B for the ranch. Four gEinerations have lived on the Lazy B during its 100 years. The Days hosted Crentennial celebration last year for tl!1e community of Duncan, Sandra was hr:>me for the festive occasion. Mr. and Mrs. Day were married in Las Cruces in 1929, Ada Mae was born in Douglas and Harry was delivered by a midwife on a ranch. Education seems to be a tradition in the family as Mrs. Da1
CHEERS AND JEERS FOR O’CONNOR
The rave reviews of Jana Bommersbach, Southern Arizona ranch hands et alia are not enough. Sandra O’Con’nor just isn’t much to get excited about – even excited enough to support her nomination. Remember the folks who made that nomination
Sure she’s no Rehnquist. Somebody broke that mold soon after his birth. But she is still quite conservative. And people have known for 10 or 20 years that a conservative woman can rise to fairly great heights in the good old U.S.A. The point is people like Sandra O’Connor do not have a coherent view of society that they will try to put forward such that people, especially female people, can be liberated in a meaningful sense of the word.
The questions are these: should she have received the nomination if she hadn’t had a pretty wealthy start in life, including horses (note the plural), prep school and Stanford Law? Could she have risen so high in Arizona politics without the connections offered by her family and her marriage? Would she have been so respected if she had remained childless? (Or if her sons hadn’t gone to Brophy Prep?) Would she have advanced in the Arizona Judiciary if she had made any public statements regarding the injustice, racism, sexism, and general anti-democratic (note small d) sentiment in Arizona state government? Would she be so popular if she hadn’t joined (and led) the Right women’s clubs? And why were they single-sex clubs anyway? Finally, regarding endorsements, how much respect
There are several questions which beg answers for many folk across this nation. Questions that needed to be raised in order to let the Judiciary Committee know that many of us are concerned about the two areas which Mrs. O’Connor refused to answer because they were “substantive” issues not to be discussed. THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC On the question of abortion, the fact is that Mrs. O’Connor has actively supported legislation . on abortion. One can explain away her vote on the rider of the university bill but not her “aye,, vote in committee and again in caucus for an unlimited abortion-on-demand bill. Again, she voted “no” on a Memorial to Congress to extend protections to unborn babies by prohibiting abortion. She also cosponsored a Family Planning Act which provided for medical procedures, information and contraceptives for anyone regardless of sex, race, age, etc. Physicians could furnish these services to minors without the consent of parents or guardians. The issue becomes even broader – it involves parent.s’ right.s and responsibilities. It has been reported that Mrs. O’Connor changed her mind on the Equal Right.s Amendment after she introduced it by special permission to the Senate. That was not Mrs. O’Connor but Bess Stinson and myself. Mrs. O’Connor continued to support it throughout her term in office and there is nothing to indicate a reversal of her support. When the Judiciary Committee meet.s, I’m sure the “substantive” questions will be answered. AB someone said; “It
NATIONAL-The American Bar Association is taking a long, hard look at Sandra O’Connor’s qualifications to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court
But the U.S. Senate that is expected to routinely confirm O’Connor before the court’s fall session begins in October will know what the ABA thinks of the Arizona Court of Appeals judge before the_public does. The Reagan administration apparently has ordered the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to keep the report under wraps until the hearings.
Chairwoman Brooksley Landau, a Washington lawyer, is refusing to say if Reagan has authorized the ABA to release the report when it’s completed – a polite way of saying it won’t be. Reagan waited until the last minute to inform the ABA he was nominating O’Connor, coming perilously close to ignoring a Presidential tradition of seeking a pre-nomination imprimatur from the nation’s largest association of lawyers, but the national press doesn’t seem interested in asking why.
Some skeptics in the legal community are suggesting the committee might designate O’Connor as a judicial lightweight, whose relatively brief trial court tenure doesn’t give her the length and depth in constitutional law expected of justices. O’Connor doesn’t have as many years on the bench as Reagan’s other female finalists, the skeptics note.
On the other hand, O’Connor brings to the court the kind of nuts-and-bolts trial experience ~at could keep the Supremes from wandering too often into legal esoterica that reads
Usually, in this trade, there is somebody at the other end of the telephone who can give you the answer to any question save possibly what the Aztecs were trying to say on their calendar stone. The morning paper even reveals that Shy Di’s uncle, or somebody serving the dynastic concerns of Great Britain, acknowledged that a discreet examination established that she could bear a successor to the throne. As the people in Silicon Valley are fond of saying, “It’s all a problem of software In hardNare, there are no more problems,” Well, I’m still in search of a definite body of knowledge on the question: What exactly can you legitimately ask someone who has been named to the Supreme Court? There are apparenily no hard rules. Such as there are depend for their effect on plausibility. For instance: • Sen. Jones: Mrs. O’Connor, if the Human Life bill is passed into law and its constitutionality is challenged before the court. how would you vote? Mrs. O’Connor: Senator. I don’t think it proper to say how I would vote on a pending matter. For one thing, I would want to study the briefs. hear the oral argum ents and perhaps even ask a question of my own. J : Does that mean that you can 1, make up your mind on the question whether the Congress of the United States has the constitutional right, to cll•dare at what point a biological organism becomes entith •d to the protPciion of the 14th …
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Reagan has named a woman to the Supreme Court and has promised to campaign from the White House against state laws that discriminate against wommmen. Still, though, hrs political problem with women voters hasn ‘t been solved. It showed up on Election Day, and it is still there. Reagan fulfilled a campaign promise wher, he decided to nominate Arizona Appeals Court judge Sandra D. O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Now he is fulfilling another, with a drive for repeal of discriminat:ory state laws. He has appointed an aide, Judy Peachee, to work on that project and has written governors asking their help “to identify and correct state laws and regulations which discriminate on the basis of sex.” As campaigner and as president, Reagan has firmly opposed ratification of the Equal Rightti Amendment. His campaign pledges on the court appointment and the drive to erase discriminatory laws were offered aa. antidotes to criticism stemming from his position against the ERA. But on Eleeiion Day~ Reagan won overwhehning- ly among male vot.ers, narrowly among females. The difference of opinion persists. The polls show that men still are mere im.pres.ted than women with Reagan’s pert’o~ ae preeident; although the majority is favorable in both caees Women – and men – strong backing for the nomination of Mrs. O’Connor. But, aa they have for month,, women hold a generally lower opini(m of Reapri, troat him _…_, give him a lower job rating and feel he is less compassionate
Apparently trying to quell the rising waters of discontent among groups on the right, White House chief of sta~ James A. Baker III has established a regular pipeline for communications with several conservative groups that are upset about the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. ! Baker acknowledged yesterday that, in a recent meeting with representatives of several conservativei groups, he establ.ished a regular pro-j cess to permit the groups to bring, their views on sensitive issues to the White House. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Research and Education. Foundation, who was present at the’ luncheon meeting in Baker’s office, said many conservative groups are still extremely upset by the admin-, stration’s action in the Supreme Court nomination. “I tried to explain to Jim Baker the damage that had been done to the coalition” of Republicans, religious groups, and activists on conservative causes, Weyrich said, adding that he was not sure Baker understands the extent of the rift. Baker and the representatives of five conservative groups agreed to establish a regular memo channel into the White House so that groups on the right could alert the White House to their concern on some selected issues. “It was a meeting to establish and maintain lines of communication,” Baker said yesterday. “It was designed to make it clear that in appointing Sandra O’Connor the president went to great lengths to satisfy himself on her views … that in making this nomination
The savage attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor by right-wing groups reveal a dangerously distorted idea of how the U. S. government should work. In this country, Congress enacts the legislation; the courts determine its conformity with the organic law of the land, the Constitution, and define its application to specific cases. The fact that groups such as the Moral Majority and the National Right to Life Committee supported President Reagan in the last electi0n gives them no right to have a representative on the Supreme Court or any other branch of the judiciary. When the Senate holds hearings on confirmation of the O’Connor appointment, it should review her record as a lawyer, state legislator, and appeals court judge in Arizona . It should not try to extract a commitment about how she will vote in cases involving abortion, the issue that her critics consider crucial. And it should ignore the demands of lobbyists who want it to demonstrate to President Reagan that “his next court appointment had better be pro-life.” Abortion is only one of the many controversial issues the Supreme Court will have to consider in the years ahead. Vacancies on the court should be filled with appointees who are distinguished for their wisdom and their judicial temperament, not for their blind accept – ance of the doctrines of any group. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made his reputation as a gre_at judge by defending . the right of the government – whether federal or state-to
WASHINGTON -The issue that finally sank Andrew Young as the Carter administration’s ambassador to the United Nations was his meeting with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization and, more to the point politically, the angry reaction it caused in the Jewish community . Two years later that same reaction seems to be haunting Young in his campaign for mayor of Atlanta. After several months of campaigning Young has been able to raise less than $100,000, while Atlanta’s substantial Jewish community is pouring money into one of his prime rivals, state legislator Sidney Marcus. The Marcus campaign concedes it is likely to have $500,000 to spend, and other sources suggest it may be as much as $700,000. One result is that Marcus advertising is already running on television, and has been for weeks, although the election is not until Oct. 6. Marcus is not Young’s only problem. Some Atlanta political professionals say they believe that Reginald Eaves, a controversial former public safety commissioner, has been making significant progress in winning the support of low-income blacks who credit him with halting police brutality against them. At this point, however, there are no opinion poll figures to support that thesis. * • * The White House, well aware of the unhappiness among leauing conservative and anti-abortion groups over the nomination of Sandra O’Connor to the Supreme Court, has upgraded its stroking of the New Right. James A. Baker , the White House chief of staff
It was bound to happen sooner or later, and with his unexpectedly early opportunity to make his mark on the composition of the Supreme Court, it is turning out to be sooner. President Reagan’s nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to replace retired Justice Potter Stewart has , as you must certainly be aware unless you have sworn off the front pages entirely for the summer, brought out an important segment of his constituency “in strident opposition. . O’Connor would appear to have everything to qualify as a quality appointee – political and judicial experience, an impressive academic record and a reputation in public office as a principled conservative who has won the respect of both ideological allies and opponents. But the newly powerful new right says it won’t have her, thereby appearing to confirm the predictions of those who have been saying – hopefully or otherwise – that President Reagan would never be able to satisfy the demands of the assortment of special-interest groups that candidate Reagan had attracted to his cause. In the case of the O’Connor nomination the interest is CJ)position to abortion. But in judging that nomination unacceptable on the basis of votes cast while she was a member of the Arizona legislature, her conservative critics are reacting both hastily and in disregard of some basic Supreme Court history. The abortion issue was not all that clearly defined in the legislation under scrutiny. And as you may by now be weary of being informed, attempting to
PHOENIX – The Arizona Senate Friday approved by a 29-1 vote a House memorial endorsing the nomination of Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Su~reme Court. The memorial said O’Connor is “an eminently qualified jurist, having served as a trial court judge, and is presently serving as an appellate court Judge.” Sen. Manuel Pena, D-Phoenix, cast the dissenting vote.
W~ If!NGTON – Confirmation hearings on the ~,.., n~mmatton of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court “,ti will be Sept. 9-11, Sen. Strom Thunnond, R-S.C., chairman ‘ of the Senate Judicary Committee, said. O’Connor, a state appe’.118 court judge in Arizona, has been nominated by President Reagan to succeed Justice Potter Stewart who retired_ this month. If confirmed, the Paradise Valley’ resident will be the first woman ever to serve on the nation’s highest court.
THE NEW RIGHT is wrong in launching a campaign to deny Judge Sandra O’Connor a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. , It is wrong because Judge O’Connor’s judicial record is clearly one of balance that defies activist or biased labels. It is wrong because the 51-year-old Arizo- ~ . is a strict constructionist – making her “~ aecisions on legal precedent, not trying to :~: I 4!?~ate law herself. u .. .. , f.,-.,~It is wrong in attributing certain abortion ~: ~ws to Judge O’Connor while she has made ~If if clear not only that she is personally opposed tQ ,oortion but that her position has been ~–•~rsimplified and she will clarify her legisla- c,~1t,i~ voting record on the subject in testimony .before the U.S. Senate. c,V’• ‘, ~ •, tis wrong because the judge deserves the ~!.~op~rtunity – indeed, has the legal and 111 , n’S,otal right – to state her qualifications and, a¥. li “necessary, defend her record before the ;~, ~te without being prejudged. .. ; i …. it is wrong because there is nothing in either O’Connor’s professional or personal life to suggest she is a radical feminist although she is concerned about women’s right.s. It is wrong to challenge the Arizonan on ideology rather than her qualifications to judge subst.antive, legal issues. It is wrong for the New Right to assume it was the dominating factor in the election of President Reagan and, therefore, has a singular or special role in guiding the administration because such an electoral assumption is clearly inaccurate.
WASHINGTON – A major conservative fundraiser – declaring the New Right is not “a paper tiger” – vowed Wednesday to enter the fray to keep Sandra O’Connor from winning Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court jUBtice …
said committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, RS.C., told him the nomination is expected to clear the com.mittee and be reported out to the full Senate by Sept. 15. Fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire, singling ont Judge O’Connor’s views on the rights of religious broadcasters and church ownership of property, said, “We believe (that} in the area of First Amendment rights, she’s very dangerous.” Viguerie served notice, while speaking to the Washington Press Club, of an all-out battle to convince senators to vote against her. “These senators have to be shown a tremendoUB outpouring at the grass-roots level” before they will oppose Judge O’Connor, said Viguerie, who has raised millions of dollars for conservative candidates and causes across the nation. Viguerie said the New Right – an informal coalition united by ultraconservative views on both social and economic issues – has to wage a battle against Judge O’Connor’s record on the abortion issue or else the White House “will just think we are a paper tiger.” But the White House repeated the administration•~ belief that she will be confirmed – perhaps unanunously. Meanwhile, Carolyn Gerster, former Right to Life president and longtime acquaintance of Judge O’Connor, was asked if she believes President Reagan was duped
Wai;hington A major conservative fund-raiser ,owed :resterday to enter the fray to keep Sandra O’Connor from winning Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The declaration by direct-mail “izard Richard Viguerie came as fundamentalist opponents to O’Connor opened a new First Amendment front and other foes of the Arizona judge continued to attack her record on abortion. Fundamentalist preacher Carl :’ltclntire, singling out O”Connor’s iews on the rights of religious broadcasters and church ownership of property. said, “We believe. in the area of First Amendment rights, she s very dangerous.” And Viguerie sened notice, while speaking to the Washington Press Club, of an all-out battle to convince members of the Senate to vote against the selection. “These senators have to be shown a trem<'ndous outpouring at the gras5 roots level" before they will oppose O'Connor, said Viguerie. who has raised millions of dollars for conservatie candidates and cam,es across the nation. He refused to say specifically \ hat kind of campaign is being organized, saying only: "\,'e're going to have some big events in a 'ery public way dealing with some of these religious leaders." Viguerie said the New Right - an informal coalition united by ultraconservative views on both ~ocial and economic issues - has to wage a battle against O'Connor's record on the abortion issue, or else the White House ''\ill just think we are a paper tiger." l1clntire, who described R~Jgan's choice as "a dark
WASHINGTON (AP) – Conservative Richard Viguerie says his direct-mail organization is working nearly “around the clock” to block Sandra D. O’Connor’s nomination as a Supreme Court justice . But with Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to start Sept. 8, Viguerie hints that it’s the principle – not necessarily a victory – that counts. “The only way we’re going to lose this is if we fail to fight the fight,” Viguerie said Wednesday. The White House would view the conservatives as “paper tigers” if they did not mount their opposition, he said, adding, “It’s a battle that has to be waged.” Senate leaders from both parties have predicted the 51-year-old Arizona appeals court judge will win easy confirmation, despite conservatives’ claims that she supports abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. Viguerie refused to predict whether the coalition’s efforts would succeed. He said the fight against the nomination would be aimed at reminding President Reagan of the conservative coalition that helped elect him last fall. He charged that the White House staff has not been considering the grass -roots support that Reagan received – particularly when it came to the Supreme Court nomination. “We are working around the clock, almost, to generate support,” for the opposition to Mrs. O’Connor, Viguerie said. “These senators have to be shown there is grass -roots support.” “We’re going to have some big events before the nomination takes place,” he said, adding that the opposition to Mrs. O’Connor
S andra O’Connor, President Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court, has won the endorse- _ ment of a couple of “gun lobby” groups in Yashington, but so far the National Rifle Association has been silentconcerning her nomination. For what it is worth, I am sure the NRA also a~proves_ of her _no~ination based on her record as a fm and unpartial Judge, one with the courage to be to~h _when toughness is called for, and her legislative record as a state senator. I was covering the state Senate during most of O’Connor’s service there, and I worked closely with her as a citizen on an important firearms bill. Th~t bill was described by the Washington lob~yists as measure “that would have made it easier for ArJZOna residents to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.” That statement is 100 percent wrong. There never h~ been any such thing in Arizona as getting a permit to carry concealed weapons. In states w~e~e such pe~ts can be obtained, it seems that cnmmals sometimes wind up with permits easier than honest citizens. At my request – as a citizen who has worked for many years to see to it that Arizona has reasonable and enforceable firearms-control laws – O’Connor h_e~ped me rewrite state statutes to protect honest citizens from harassment or unwarranted arrest on concealed-weapons charges. We undertook to do that by detailing out in the law how firearms could be legally carried. During that period I learned a lot about O’Connor’s philosophy and character, because we debated the
Editor: Re: Rep. Jim Skelly. I have not always agreed with Jim Skelly, but I have always known exac~y where he stands on issues. Because of his honesty with the people, he is refreshing and a rarity in politics today. . It is good to know that one man rn politics will not compromise his principles for the sake of political expediency or big business.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court became an equal opportunity employer, there was Florence Allen. Wheµ she was 7 years old, her father said, “If Florence were a boy, I’d make her into a lawyer.” When she was grown, three U.S. presidents said that if Flprence were a man, she’d be a Supreme Court Justice. Florence Ellinwood Allen. Published _poet. Concert pianist. First woman to pronounce the death sentence . First woman judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, and for three decades, best bet to become the first female on the nation’s highest bench. Two weeks ago, President Reagan nominated Sandra D. O’Connor for that honor and Florence Allen, who died in 1966, would have been as pleased as all the other women jurists __ who have struggled for the day a woman would get invited to join Washington’s most exclusive male club. When Reagan cho!’e O’Connor, a 51-year-old Arizona Appellate Court justice, to sit with those who “leave their footprints on the sands of time,” the president fulfilled a campaign pledge to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court. The historic value of the move was not lost on this president who, despite his opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, cheerfully praised O’Connor as the equal of “the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” Between Allen and O’Connor, there have been at least a dozen women judges publicly mentioned for justice jobs. But few of them have even come close to a seat on the big bench.
…
Every president has a honeymoon, and Ronald Reagan’s has been longer than most. Congress, the press, opinion leaders and even many Democrats are still treating him like a new bridegroom. • But for one important group of Reagan supporters – the New Right conservatives – the honeymoon is over. ‘I’hey flexed their muscle over the nomination of Sandra D. O’Connor to the Supreme Court, and lost. For some of the most vocal leaders of the New Right movement, the nomination was the latest in a series of slights and insults they have suffered from Reagan advisers which raise questions in their minds about whether the president is really their kind of conservative. “The White House slapped us in the face,” says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. “‘I’he White House is saying you don’t have a constituency we’re concerned about. We don’t care about you.” “Thel’e’s been a challenge issued,” explains Viguerie. “It is something we can’t ignore. We either fight this one, or we aren’t leaders.” Viguerie and his cohorts on the New Right have done just that. They have f urned and fussed. They’ve launched a series of pointed’ attacks on O’Connor in their publications and in thousands of letters and telegrams sent to their supporters around the country. But after two weeks, they have yet to persuade a single senator to come out against O’Connor, the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court. They plan to continue what they now see as an all but hopeless fight if only
One more Sandra O’Connor story …. The woman who is the president’s pick to serve as the first female Supreme Court justice didn’t always find her legal skills in demand. After she graduated from Stanford Law School with high marks and impeccable credentials, private law firms in California still closed their doors to her. “They had never hired a woman,” she said in a 1978 interview with Today’s Living. “They weren’t prepared to change. I was offered a job as a secretary provided I could type well.” So instead, she went to work as a deputy county attorney in San Mateo. Now for a chorus of Who’s sorry now?
During his 11 yean in the Arizona Legislature, Rep. Jim Skelly has earned a reputation as a staunch opponent of abortion and a fervent defender of the free enterprise system. It was Skelly who sponsored the bill that put a course on free enterprise economics in Arizona high schools. He has also backed numerous measures to protect unborn life. Because of his deep conviction that abortion is morally wrong Skelly has f!J>Oken out against the appointment of Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Skelly and Mrs. O’Connor cast opposing votes on the issue when Mrs. O’Connor was in the Legislature. . “l \ifi You ._r Skelly is apparently too outspoken for the Greyhound Corporation for whom he worked as a customer representative. Upset with his views on the O’Connor nomination, Greyhound asked Skelly to tone down his opposition. Unable to compromise his principles, Skelly resigned. Skelly’s stand is all the more courageous because he knows that it will have no influence on whether Mrs. O’Connor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She enjoys overwhelming support from Arizona and in Washington. That Skelly should be treated so shabbily by a major representative of the free market system he so ardently defends is indeed ironic.
President Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, and a great hue and cry went up. , Not about whether a woman’s place is on the Supreme Cou~–Or wJletber O’Connor was quahf1ed. Or who was going to take care of 1 her clllldreo (never mind that her three sons are all taller than she – that question has been put to other women with grown children). The storm centered around one issue: her stand on abortion. Could it be that the sex of the new nominee makes no difference any more? A recent New York Times-CBS News poll suggests so. Seventy-two percent of those asked said it made no difference to them whether a man or a woman was appointed to the Supreme Court.
I take that to mean that per• haps a large percentage of the public is open-minded enough to think that a woman can do what has been considered a man’s job for 191 years. Or that maybe people simply think it’s no ‘?nger autom~tic that women in high .places will ,ote the party line on so-called women’s issues. On the one band. it’s heartening the public has come so far in its acceptance of female leadership.
On the other hand, I believe there are some very real ways in which a female justice will make a difference. I believe her presence alone may change the way women perceive themselves as well as the way the public perceives ~omen’s leadership abilities. It will s~ow other women in the law – and little girls thinking about the law – that the door to the top is not closed. Whether or not
Five years ago I heard the commencement address made by Judge Sandra Day O’Connor at the Orme School, in Arizona. When someone told me that an Arizona woman had been nominated to the Supreme Court vacancy, I felt quite sure that it must be she. When the news confirmed my judgment, a lump of patriotism rose in my throat. It isn’t often that one feels secure in judging anyone, least of all a judge, by one meeting. Judge O’Connor is an exception to that need for prudence. She exudes competence and integrity a degree impossible to fake. She radiates simple, uncomplicated honesty, while, at the same time, exhibiting all of the sophistication necessary in dealing with political sophistry. In my view, nothing in the Reagan administration’s actions is more significant than this appointment which should do more to cool off government by faction than any certain other move which can be imagined. One is tempted to predict that she will disarm even the liberals.
CHARLES R. LA DOW San Diego
So much euphoria reigns over the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor for a Supreme Court apP01!1tment t~at maybe nobody will notice much if an old sourpuss slips a mite of cynicism into the goingson, just for the heck of it. The thing is that the politics of deception – another term for the end justifying the means – doesn’t go down easily unless greased with cynicism. Ideally, too, it should be a first-class grade of cynicism – the kind that’ll provide a slippery coat for whatever it is we’re bent on swallowing, so that, once it’s down, we won’t even know the cynicism was there in the first place. Now that’s good cynicism. It has utility. I’ve a hunch that Judge O’Connor may be the best Supreme Court appointment in the past couple of dec- ades. But doesn’ t it mean anything at all that President Reagan – when he. was candida~e Reagan – promised – promised! – the antiabortion folks he would not name to the highest court in the land anyone whose views on abortion countered theirs? He sought out the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee and, in return for that support, pledged Carolyn Gerster, co-founder in Phoenix of that organization, that he would not name a pro-abortionist to the high court. So she says anyway. Maybe there’ll be a denial. But she fills in her story with some rather vivid detail, including the claim that, to turn the tide of support last summer in Iowa that was building among Republicans for George Bush, Reagan told her, “It will mean a lot
COVER STORY
The Brethren’s First Sister
A Supreme Court nominee-and a triumph for common sense Ronald Reagan lived up to a campaign pledge last week, and the nation cheered. At a hastily arranged television appearance in the White House press room, the President referred to his promise as a candidate that he would name a woman to the Supreme Court, explaining: “That is not to say 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 decisions of the court. Rather, I pledged to appoint a woman who meets the very high standards I demand of all court appointees.”
So saying, he introduced his nominee to succeed retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart as “a person for all seasons,” with “unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity.” She was Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, the first woman to serve as majority leader of a U.S. state legislature and, since 1979, a judge in the Arizona State Court of Appeals. O’Connor’s name had been floated about in rumors ever since Stewart, 66, announced his intention to retire last month, but her nomination, which must be approved by the Senate in September, was a stunning break with tradition.
In its 191- year history, 101 judges have served on the nation’s highest court, and all have been men. By giving the brethren their first sister, Reagan provided not only a breakthrough on the bench but a powerful push forward in the shamefully
Editor: Keith Akins’ cartoon of Sandra O’Connor directing redecorating of the Supreme Court chambers is not funny-it’s ludicrous! This woman has spent 30 years turning herself into an excellent, well-respected jurist. Let’s recognize that fact as we would for any high court nominee, and quit dragging out the old 1950’s sitcom cliches. Diana K. Jaquette Mesa
Back to Sandra O’Connor. A number of my fellow conservatives remain unhappy about the lady’s Supreme Court nomination. They claim she’s soft on abortion and the F,qual Rights Amendment. I’m not going to belabor those issues. If I had been in the Arizona Legislature when she was, I might have tried to duck the abortion question, too. And as for the Equal Rights Amendment, it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so why get too upset? What strikes me about the O’Connor nomination.are two things: 1) the slipshod nature of White House preparation for coping with a breach of the 1980 Republican platform commitment to select judicial nominees on abortion-linked criteria (the breach itself was probably inevitable); and 2) the new male-female double standard that has been applied in the O’Connor selection process. Point one is Machiavellian. There are well-positioned people in the administration, mostly former George Bush campaign aides, who dote on seeing President Reagan sour his relations with the right-to-life crowd. The more they can widen the breach, the less influence the new right and right-to -lifers will have in the future to block a future Bush presidential nomination. Point two hasn’t received enough attention. The old male-female double standard is that a woman couldn’t be nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s gone, of course. The new double standard is that when a woman is nominated, she doesn’t have to meet the same standards of prior experience or undergo the same
WASHINGTON (AP) -Almost singlehandedly, Sandra D. -O’Connor seems to ha~e.defused any serious conservative opposition to her becoming the first woman on the Supreme Court. In four days of sometimes helter- skelter meetings on Capitol Hill, O’Connor has drawn praise from senators normally on opposite sides of almost any political issue. “I’m convinced that Judge O’Connor will receive confirmation by an overwhelming if not a unanimous Senate,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the principal Democratic liberal voice in the Senate and a major ideological opponent of the Reagan administration. Kennedy is as enthusiastic on O’Connor’s behalf as conservative stalwart Barry Goldwater, the Republican senator who is the nominee’s home-state sponsor. Other key conservatives, such as Republicans Orrin Hatch of Utah and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina have said they will support the quiet-s~ken graduate of Stanford University Law School. Thus far, no senator has come out in opposition. In all, O’Connor met with 24 of the 100 members of the Senate. Most meetings ended or began with a photograph that will no doubt find its way into mail to voters in each senator’s state. Constantly trailed by a band of reporters and television crews, O’Connor seemed amused at only one point in her Washington visit, when she and a few aides and reporters were briefly trapped in a crowded, stubborn elevator that refused to stop at the proper floor. O’Connor’s travels through the Senate recalled one of Reagan’s
Difficult questions about age fill the mail this week. Mr. C.S. of Chester, Pa., for example, writes that since the 1930’s the Supreme Court has often been referred to as ”nine old men” and asks:
”If Sandra O’Connor’s appointment is confirmed, will it be correct thereafter to refer to the Court as eight old men and an old woman?”
No, Mr. C.S., ”eight old men and an old woman” will not do. In the first place, since Mrs. O’Connor is only 51 years old the phrase would strike most people over the age of 29 as viciously overloaded with youth bias. To people in their 20’s a female Justice of 51 may be an ”old woman,” but people old enough to remember Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes might just as reasonably think of a woman of 51 as a ”spring chicken.”
Do we want to refer to the Supreme Court as ”eight old men and a spring chicken”? Of course not. Even in America, vulgarity must have its limits. How about ”eight old men and a lady”? Out of the question – feminists have declared ”lady” a taboo word. They prefer the word ”person,” which would give us ”eight old men and a person.”
Unfortunately, this construction calls attention to Mrs. O’Connor’s femininity and may, therefore, be objectionable as a ”sexist” phrase. Are the eight old men, after all, not persons too, just as Mrs. O’Connor is a person? If Mrs. O’Connor were older we could solve the problem simply with ”nine old persons.” Under the circumstances, however, the only possible phrase is ”eight old
Public glimpses fail to capture traits nominee shows in private contacted me about arrangements for her golf lessons, and I’m not planning on moving to Washington. She’ll probably have the best handicap on the court.” committal smile is known only to her circle of friends and her family. Supporters speak of her integrity, intelle ct, energy and capacity for hard work. By Chuck Hawley Republic Staff Steve Dunning may be the only person in the United States who doesn’t believe Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor will accept her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dunning, a former assistant golf pro at Paradise Valley Country Club, has tutored the judge’s golf game for two years. His tongue-in-cheek comment was one of many insights on the first woman nominated to the Supreme Court . Even negative comments seem to have an element of grudging praise – demanding, intense, aloof, severe. . “I don’t care what t&e press says,” Dunning said. “I won’t believe she’s going to accept the nomination until I hear from her. She has not Despite the intensity of official and press scrutiny, the person behind that pleasant but nonBy now, her childhood, schooling, career, marriage, political positions and voting record are matters of record – a record compiled and then scrutinized by White House staff, the FBI, proponents, opponents and reporters. Time and Newsweek have devoted a total of 14 pages to the story. In Arizona. it’s become a classic tale of “local girl makes good.” The thousands
RATHER than alter or abandon his criticism of Supreme Court Justicenominee Sandra O’Connor, state Rep. Jim Skelly quit his job with the Greyhound Corp. In so doing, he not only showed the courage of his convictions, but he also struck _ a blow for a legislative process free of unwarrant.ed pressures. His bosses, concerned that the public might confuse Skelly’s legislative role with his Greyhound customer-relations role, attempted to moderate his public utterances on Judge O’Connor’s nomination. Skelly, who still seethes over Judge O’Connor’s votes in the early 1970s on abortion when she served in the state senate, is outraged by her nomination. He fmds it diametrically opposed to “the welfare of the innocent unborn.” During more than five years with Greyhound, Skelly undoubtedly has said or done things as a legislator that weren’t totally to the company’s liking. Meanwhile, most of the community probably was unaware that he even worked for Greyhound. Why the company felt the need to control his views on Judge O’Connor is difficult to underst.and. Neither U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., nor any national group st.ands a chance of blocking her confirmation, much less a state representative. By leaning on Skelly the way it did, Greyhound bas given itself a black eye, and has done no great favor to business in general The company is correct when it says Judge O’Connor is “one of the most level-headed, intelligent justices, male or female, ever to serve on the bench.” But it does
Two centuries of national history suggest that Sandra O’Connor will be confirmed in due time and take her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court unless a continuing investigation unearths something wholly unexpected. Her nomination by President Reagan has given the political far right and opponents of abortion per se another megaphone, which will be exploited thoroughly. However, her conservative credentials are nearly impeccable and, after all, didn’t Mr. Reagan himself sign an bill permitting abortion when he was governor of California? After the thunder on the right diminishes, the U.S. Senate will confront an inexorable historical fact: Except in rare cases, only egregious-, ly unqualified persons have been rejected and O’Connor clearly is qualified. Since 1787, U.S. presidents have nominated 139 persons to the court. Only 26 were considered unfit by the Senate. Most recently denied confirmation were Clement F. Haynsworth in 1969 and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970, both named by President Nixon. It’s a reasonable assumption that the Senate will not compound President Reagan’s historic landmark by rejecting the first female court appointee over a single issue. So speculation deepens on how O’Connor’s presence will influence the court. Published analyses suggest that O’Connor will have more understanding of state and local issues and problems, given her background in the Arizona legislature and on the Arizona bench. President Reagan apparently believes that O’Connor will “interpret !he_
Early years I I 1 Judge O’Connor was born March 26, 1930, at the El Paso, Texas, home of her maternal grandmother, Ada Mae Wilkey. She was the Bride and barrister first of three children in the pioneer Arizona I ranching family of Harry A. and Ada Mae Wilkey Day. 1 An old newspaper account says the Day 1 family’s 162,000-acre Lazy-B Ranch was “the first in southeastern Arizona.” She went to school in El Paso, where she 1 lived with her grandmother, because there were no suitable schools near the ranch. She attended the Radford School for girls and graduated from Austin High School, which she attended for her senior year. ‘ She has a sister, Ann, now 43 and married to former state Sen. Scott Alexander, and a brother, Alan, 41, who manages the ranch. ‘ Matriculation to marriage • : After high school, she enrolled at Stanford : University, majoring in economics and grad1 uated “with great distinction.” Admitted to Stanford Law School, she had a distinguished classmate in Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. An early report that they graduated third and first, respectively, has been discounted. But Judge O’Connor does have substantial academic credentials. She was a member of the Order of the Coif – a national honor society restricted to law students in the top 10 percent of their classes. It was at Stanford that she met her husband, John J. O’Connor III, another law student and Stanford Law Review staffer. “We were assigned to work together _ (editing a Review article) one
Like supporters and detractors of her Supreme Court nomination, Sandra Day O’Connor devoted the better part of this week to a review of the state legislation and judicial decisions that constitute the record of much of her public life.
With her office at the Arizona Court of Appeals here overflowing with congratulatory bouquets, her desk cluttered with papers and files, and her law clerk, husband and friends helping with the review, Judge O’Connor looked up at a brief break yesterday morning to sigh, “It’s a nightmare.”
“Fifty years is a long time,” she said, “and it’s hard to remember everything you did.”
Differences of Temperament
The review is far from complete, but the woman, public and private, who has so far emerged from an examination of of those records, and from conversations with friends, colleagues and adversaries, is by political instinct, judicial philosophy, economic standing and personal temperament both similar to and different from the constituency that elected Ronald Reagan President.
Judge O’Connor emerges as a sometime conservative with a moderate, even progressive streak, a determined woman but not a dogmatic one. President Reagan described her as a “person for all seasons,” but she appears to be something less than the advocate that other supporters, including many in the feminist movement, have made her out to be. At the same time she is clearly more complex than her detractors, including Moral Majority and the anti-abortion lobby, have suggested.
WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN nominated Judge Sandra O’Connor to become the first woman Supreme Court Justice, Steve Dunnmg took it hke the pro he is. “I was teaching her according to a four-year plan, and we’d only completed two,”‘ he said. ” As my pupil, I would have expected her to consult me about whether she should accept such a Job. But, I guess, opportunities hke this don’t come along every day, do they?” Dunning, a droll fellow of 34, is a golf instructor – and a good one – at the Glen View Club, an arboretum in Golf, Ill., which embraces some of God’s greenest acres. This is one course so beautifully manicured that you hate to see anybody take a divot, and so classy that even the birds stop chirpmg when a member is about to putt. During the wmter, when even Glen View isn’t playable, Dunnmg irons out slices m Arizona. Judge O’Connor works there, and Dunning was hired to tutor her when she chose to swing a 7-iron rather than a gavel. “AN OUTSTANDING PERSON, in t!!e top one per cent of the people I’ve ever taught,” said Dunning, who despite his age, has been a golf guru for more than a decade. ” Because of the demands on her time, she didn’t have a lot of time to play, but she pretty much kept to a routine She and her husband John would take a lesson from me every Saturday, then play nine holes, then come back and play 18 holes on Sunday. Last winter when I left there. I believe her handicap was in the low 20s. Not bad considering she only played 27 holes a week. When O’Connor
Washington Judge Sandra O’Connor, President Reagan’s favorite nominee at this point, privately explained her views to key senators this week, particularly those on abortion. That’s good. Judge O’Connor’s reputation for integrity will only be strengthened after she clarifies her record and views on this controversial question. Last week, I criticized those in the Pro-Life and Moral Majority movements who used extravagant rhetoric to denounce Judge O’Connor’s record. At that point, I had no evidence that she deserved to be excoriated in such fashion. I still support the O’Connor nomination, and also urge those in the Pro-Life movement to be more measured in their estimate of Judge O’Connor. I also agree with ProLifers who raise two questions about her record. On this score, I am more interested in how she answers these questions than in her pro- or antiabortion “record.” The first concerns a memo prepared in the Justice Department for the attorney general in response to early criticism of O’Connor by ProLifers. The memo, written by Counselor Kenneth W. Starr, reports that Judge O’Connor indicated 11that she has no recollection of how she voted” in 1970 as a member of the Arizona State Judiciary Committee on a bill to remove all legal sanctions on abortion in that state. The committee majority favored the bill, though the vote was not recorded. But a reporter for The Arizona Republic was present, and his published story listed Sandra O’Connor as voting for the bill to legalize abortion.
The grumbles largely turned to pledges of support last week as Sandra Day O’Connor made her way, judiciously, around Capitol Hill. She apparently assuaged supporters of restrictions on abortions by declaring that she personally opposed the medical procedure.
At the same time, moderate-to-liberals were pleased to hear her declare that, for Justices of the High Court, legal prececents should outweigh personal beliefs. ”I think she’ll be confirmed” as the first woman on the United States Supreme Court, said Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Judiciary Committee chairman. ”I expect to support her.”
The Moral Majority might or might not remain in the minority on the nomination. At one point, a spokesman said that the group’s initial opposition to Mrs. O’Connor was a mistake, adding: ”We should have shut up and not said anything.” After apparently concluding that he shouldn’t have said anything again, he later denied that the group was dropping its objections. At weeks’s end, the Rev. Jerry Falwell said he hadn’t made up his mind yet, apparently because conservative Senator Jesse Helms, an ally of the lobbying group, hasn’t made his mind up either.
Discussion about the nomination of Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court will go on for years and, for a time, it will center on her sex – simply because she was the first woman named to the court. If she is confirmed, conclusive insight on her tenure may _have to wait for historians who are given the luxury of hindsight rather than the risk of foresight. Phoenix attorney John P. Frank, a Democrat, is a nationally recognized scholar on the Supreme Court and lias written and spoken extensively on its history. Shortly after the announcement of Judge O’Connor’s nomination July 7, the following interview was taped at Frank’s office: Question: What, in your opinion, are Judge O’Connor’s strengths and weaknesses? Answer: An extraordinary brightness of the intellect, an incredible capacity for hard work and a very great thoroughness. As with all of us, her strengths are the flip side of her weaknesses. The extreme care with which she comes to her conclusions makes her somewhat inelastic after she has reac.,hed them. The brightness and quickness of her mind also means that she has in it the element that she will not suffer fools gladly. An appellate bench is the ideal place for this composite of talents and limitations because she won’t have to suffer many fools for very long Q: Is Judge O’Connor truly a “distinguished jurist” as some have , called her? : A: Judge O’Connor is qualified for ,this position. The president wanted to keep his promise to put a woman on the Supreme
LYNCHBURG, Va. – The Rev. Jerry Falwell said Friday that he probably will wait until after Senate conf’mnation hearings before decid- ing whether to support or oppose Judge Sandra O’Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But Falwell, leader of the Moral Mtajority, a conservative lobbying group, said he still hopes for a Reagan-appointed court that will reverse a 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Falwell had planned to decide his position on the nomination of Judge O’Connor after conAulting Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N._C., a Moral Majority ally who met With Judge O’Connor on Thursday evening. However, Helms declined to take a position on her nomination, saying one 40-minute meeting was not enough to make a decision. Falwell, after talking with Helms’ aides, also remained uncommitted. “We are not opposing Judge O’Connor’s nomination ” Falwell said. “We are not supporting Judge O’Connor’s nomination. We will wait until all the facts are in and probably the hearings are conducted.” The Senate Judiciary Committee probably will conduct its confirmation hearings in September.
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sandra D. O’Connor talked about abortion with staunch anti-abortion senators and ended up telling at l~ast one of them her views on the controversial subject are the same as President Reagan’s. The Arizona jurist met Friday with Sens. John East, R-N.C., and Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., who asked her if published reports that her abortion views are the same as the president’s were true. ”She said, ‘Yes,”‘ Humphrey told reporters. REAGAN BAS said he considers abortion “murder.” As California governor he signed a law which permitted large numbers of abortions, but later said that was because abortion proponents found loopholes allowing abortions even when the woman’s life was not in danger. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., also got a visit from Judge O’Connor during her rounds with senators who will vote on her norniation, and said afterward: “I am convinced she will receive the confirmation – overwhelmingly, if not unanimously” and “‘she will make an outstanding justice.” Humphrey said when they talked about the Supreme Court’s landmarl. 1973 abortion decision, “She made it clear to me that the judiciary has a distinctly different role from the legislature and neither body should encroach” on the other. CALLING THE court’s abortion decision “the most flagrant example of judicial usurpation of power,” East said the 51-year-old jurist would “of course” be questioned about her abortion views during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
WASHINGTON – Ending the first round of her campaign to win approval as the Supreme Court’s first woman justice, Sandra O’Connor said Friday that her views on abortion are the same as President Reagan’s.
The Arizona Court of Appeals judge met with staunch anti-abortion Sens. John East, R-N.C., and Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., who asked her about published reports that her abortion views were comparable to Reagan’s. “She said, ‘Yes,’ ” Humphrey told reporters. But East said he was “reserving the right” to make his decision until after the confirmation hearings be- , fore the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member. The : panel is expected to take up her nomination in September. • “I did not ask her her personal .. views on abortion,” East said after a 30-minute meeting with Judge • O’Connor. Asked whether he questioned her ,. about her legal viewpoint on the 1973 Supreme Cciurt• decision giving women the right to an abortion during the first- six months of pregnancy, East replied, “No, I did ‘ not. “It’s not the litmus test,” he said of the abortion ruling. East has said he could not support , any Supreme Court nominee who r agreed with the 1973 decision, which ‘. baa become the precedent for other abortion rulings. East said Friday that a Supreme Court nominee who thought the 1973 decision was “good constitutional law” would have “grave problems” in the confirmation process. He said the abortion issue would : be “one of a host of things” that could be used to explore
PHOENIX – Sandra Day O’Connor dedicó mu-::ho tiempo la semana pasada a revisar las leyes estatales y las decisiones judiciales que _constituyen el historlal de gran parte de su vida publica. Su oflcina en el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Arizona estaba llena de ramos de flores enviados tras el anuncio de su nombramiento al estrado del Tribunal Supremo. “Cincuenta aiios es mucho tiempo”, dilo durante una interrupcion de su revision, “y es diffcil recordar todo lo que se ha hecho”. Dlferenclas de temperamento La revision no ha terminado todavra, pero la mujer que ha surgido del examen de ese historial y de conversaciones que se han sostenido con amigos, colegas y adversarias, resulta a la vez similar y diferente de la gran mayorfa de los votantes que eligieron al Presidente Ronald Reagan. Estas diferencias y similitudes se pueden encontrar en su instinto polftico, en su filosoffa judicial, en su posición económica yen su temperamento personal. La Juez O’Connor es una cc:,nservadora la mayor parte del tiempo, aunque con ciertos visos moderados y aun progresistas; una mujer decidida pero no dogmatica. Es acomodada, pero no rica; con una gran curiosidad intelectual, aunque no exactamente osada en este terreno y maleable a la vez que tradicional. El Presidente Reagan describió a la Juez O’Connor como “una persona para todos los tiempos’ pero sin embargo parece ser menos activista de lo que han dicho los que la apoyan dentro del movimiento feminista. Al mismo tiempo es mucho mas complela
Erste Bundesrichterin – Trotzdem noch Frauenprobleme Noch vor einer Woche hieß es: ,,Schlechte Zeiten für Frauen”, jetzt jubelt die Nationale Organisation der Frauen (NOW) in den USA. Zum ersten Mal in 191 Jahren wurde eine Frau für den Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten nominiert.
Die Benennung der 5ljährigen Richterin Sandra Day O’Connor aus dem US-Bundesstaat Arizona dunch US-Präsident Ronald Reagan nannte NOW-Präsidentin Eleanor Smeal einen ,,Sieg für die Rechte der Frau”.
Sandra Day O’Connor ist eine Gemäßigte in Frauenfragen. Obwohl sie persönlich gegen die Abtreibung ist, hält sie es nach bisher vorliegenden Berichten jedoch für richtig, anderen Frauen die Wahl zu lassen.
Auch für die Aufnahme des Grundsatzes der Gleichberechtigung in die amerikanische Verfassung, die immer noch nicht von der erforderlichen Zahl von Bundesstaaten ratifiziert ist, tritt sie ein.
Diese beiden Punkte sind Grund für die neue Rechte der USA, die ,.moralische Mehrheit”, heftig gegen Frau O’Connor zu polemisieren. Ihre Wahl, so die moralische Mehrheit”, sei eine schwere Beleidigung für diese starke Gruppierung, die US-Präsident Ronald Reagan schließlich mit zu seinem Wahlsieg im letzten November verholfen habe.
Reagan selbst ist gegen Abtreibung, und auch von dem Verfassungsartikel über Gleichberechtigung hält er nichts. Er ist nach langer Zeit der erste Präsident der USA, der so denkt. Diese Denkweise hat sich in der Regierungshierarchie nach unten fortgepflanzt.
Schlecht sieht
WASHINGTON – President Reagan’s chief of staff conceded Thursday that the administration has been slow in appointing women and members of minorities to high-level jobs. James A. Baker also was concerned ab?ut reports of “squabbling and turf fighting on foreign policy.” But Baker, one of tl}.e top three ~ite Ho’:18e staffers said the president successfully 18 changmg the fa~ of the federal government in what he termed the start of the “Reagan Revolution.” Speaking at the National Press Club, Baker said the administration has accelerated its efforts to place women in upper-level jobs. . “To the president, the selection of fine, distinguished people like Sandra O’Connor,” the president’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, “will not be the exception, but the trademark, of this administration.” “To be sure we have had our frustrations and disappointmen’ts,” he said, pointing to the controversy over Reagan’s proposals to revise the Social Security system. “We could have done a better job in the appointments process – both in the timeliness of the appointments and in the numbe~ of women and minorities in high posts,” Baker srud. “All of us, from the president on down, wo~d have been far happier had we see_n fewer stor_1es about squabbling and turf fightmg on foreign policy.” . During a question-and-answer sess1~n, Baker was critical of suggestions that he, ~1te House counselor Edwin Meese and deputy chief of st.aff Michael K. Deaver are running the government, and that Reagan is a
As you can see at a glance, this is pretty much a Sandra O’Connor page today . But hold it! Don’t be too hasty in turning away on grounds that you’ve read and heard enough about Judge O’Connor awreddy. It is true that we have used a lot of copy in the Tucson Citizen lately concerning President Reagan’s nomination of Arizona’s Sandra D. O’Connor to become the first woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. It is a big story, an event of some historical significance, and we’ve covered it as such. We don’t intend to chase you away with a constant barrage of O’Connor, but we feel that the information and comment o~ his page today is somewhat special in that it is the best of the best, culled from an awesome flood of copy as the world’s columnists jumped on the O’Connor theme. There is our “lede” story by Chris Collins of the Citizen’s Washingto~ Bureau , Gannett News Service. Ms. Collins is a former Citizen reporter who returned to home base long enough to find out what makes makes Mrs. O’Connor tick as a judge, a woman, a mother, a warm, breathing human being who can sit steely-eyed and humorless on the bench, then cry later over the effect of her decision. You might be interested to learn that this remarkable Phoenix jurist is a well-to-do country club woman who can strike a tennis ball or golf ball with great precision or cook a gourmet meal. Or that she will pay less than she can afford for a dress, then show it to her husband for his approval. Then there is the sober, well-reasoned
PHOENIX (AP) – Scottsdale Republican Rep. Jim Skelly says he has resigned his Greyhound Corp. job rather than knuckle down to pressure from Greyhound Chairman Gerald Trautman over Skelly’s criticism of the Sandra O’Connor Supreme Court nomination. Skelly, 47, a long-time abor- tion foe who earned $18,700 a year as a Greyhound customer relations representative in addition to his annual $15 000 legislative salary, said Thu~ay he quit after Trautman called him on Wednesday to complaint ~t Skelly’s remarks in opposition to the nomination “were intemperate.” He said Trautman especially objected to a published report that Skelly had said he was outraged by ~agan’s choice. When Trautman “put pressure on me to tone down my criticism of Sandra,” Skelly said, “I pointed out that ‘outraged’ was not in quotes, but that it might as well be because that’s the way I felt. “I told him I can’t tone down my remarks and said I was resigning,” Skelly added. He said Trautman told him, “Don’t resign, just take a week to think it over” but that “I told him I could thin,k about it till doomsday and it wouldn’t make any difference.” Trautman could not be reached, but Dorothy Lorant, vice president for public relations, issued this statement: ‘”We at Greyhound feel that Judge O’Connor is one of the most level-headed, intelligent justices, male or female, ever to serve on the bench, and that her appointment to the U.S. Supr~me Court would enhance that body. “Jim Skelly is a fine man and a conscientious
We are about to witness the biggest plus of the Reagan adminstration thus far – the end of unisex facilities at the Supreme Court • • • The nomination of Judge Sandra O’Connor to the court should end all that nonsense about the administration being anti-Irish. .. . . Reagan had found a black, female, Jewish Republican judge for the court, but her Hispanic husband Ernesto didn’t vant to quit his job as a preacher for the Moral Majo1 ¥ to move to Washington. • • • It’s not in our nature a~ a pPople to be pacified by the nomination of a woman for the Supreme Court. We’ll no doubt be hearing crie~ of “Only one?”, “Hohum, another white” and “No justice, we say, until a justice is gay!”
NEW YORK – By an overwhelming margin, Americans approve of President Reagan’s choice of Judge Sandra O’Connor to be the first female justice of the Supreme Court, an Associated Press-NBC News Poll says.
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, those who support abortion and those who oppose it all approve of the choice of the Arizona Court of Appeals judge for the high court.
The major opposition to Judge O’Connor’s nomination has come from the leaders of conservative groups that oppose abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. They say Judge O’Connor’s record in the Arizona Legislature shows she supports abortion on demand and the ERA. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned – 65 percent – said they approved of Reagan’s choice of Judge O’Connor to fill the vacancy on the nation’s highest court created by the retirement of former Justice Potter Stewart. Only 6 percent said they opposed the nomination.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., the chief Senate crusader against abortion, Thursday called Sandra O’Connor a “very fine lady” but declined to say if he will oppose her confirmation as the first woman Supreme Court justice. After a 35-minute meeting with President Reagan’s choice for the high court, Helms – who has declined to “prejudge” Judge O’Connor despite opposition to her from his right-wing allies across the country – was careful in mnswering reporters’ questions. When Helms and Judge O’Connor emerged from his office to have their pictures taken, Helms was asked about the meeting, and the usually articulate senator, searching for the right words, replied, “Well, I hope we have many more meetings. I look forward to following this lady’s career.” Asked if he is going to help her career he replied, “Why should I do othe~? She’s a very fine lady.” But he would not say whether be will vote to confirm her or lead any opposition. When reporters pressed Helms for elaboration, the senator retreated foto bis office without answering, and aides shut the door on reporters. Judge O’Connor would say only, “We had a productive meeting.” Before meeting with Judge O’Connor, Helms met at the White House with Reagan, a Helms aide confirmed Thursday. The aide would not say if Helms discussed the O’Connor nomination with Reagan. But the president has urged Helms repeatedly not to oppose the nomination, the aide said, and there has been widespread speculation that White House aides
WASHINGTON (AP) – Sandra D. O’Connor today expressed again her personal opposition to abortion, but made it clear that as a Supreme Court justice she would not be bound by personal biases, s•aid Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey. Humphrey, an abortion foe, met with the 51-year-old Arizona appeals court judge this morning on her fourth day of courting senators who will vote on her nomination to serve on the nation’s highest court. “She said the press reports were true. Her views are essentially the same as the president’s,” said the New Hampshire Republican, explaining that the reference was to “personal opposition” to abortion. Humphrey said Mrs. O’Connor followed up by saying, in effect, that Supreme Court justices “should divorce their decisions from personal biases.” Mrs. O’Connor told several senators Tuesday that she opposes abortion, but has since made it clear that she believes justices should follow legal precedents. Humphrey said he would ask constitutional scholars for help in drafting a set of questions on the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions during the first six months of pregnancy. Humphrey said he hoped to deliver the written questions to Mrs. O’Connor before the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up her nomination. He added that Mrs. O’Connor did not comment on the 1973 decision during their meeting today. “I’m st ill neutral,” Humphrey said when asked whether he would vote for her . Sen. Jesse Helms, saying his single meeting with Mrs. O’Connor wasn’t
WASHING TON – Sandra O’Connor was quoted Wednesday as saying that whatever her personal views are, she believes Supreme Court justices should follow existing high-court rulings – including one that legalized abortion. In a 1973 decision, the Supreme Court said abortion is covered by privacy rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In her second day of a &0mewhat frenetic tour among the powerful of Washington, Judge O’Connor met with President Reagan and various members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Sen. Charles Mathias Jr., R-Md. Reagan and Mathias joined Senate leaders in predicting easy Senate confirmation of Judge O’Connor to become the first woman Supreme Court justice. The soft-spoken judge met five Republican senators Wednesday, including Mathias, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Roger Jepsen and Charles Grassley of Iowa, and Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota. More meetings are scheduled with Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and others today. Grassley eaid he spoke about abortion with the judge for five minutes during which she expessed the view that it was a subject that could be handled by Congress. Saying he had not made up his mind on how he would vote, Grassley eaid he believes Judge O’Connor is a “strict constructionist” who believes in interpreting the Constitution, and not legislating from the court. Mathias, a moderate Republican who often is at odds with the conservative majority on the Judiciary Committee, eaid he learned during his 40-minute meeting with Judge O’Connor that
Father says he thinks ‘Sandra would make a good’ justice
DUNCAN – Harry Day was surrounded by shadows in his office on the Lazy B Ranch. “I’m Harry Day, and I’m busy,” he said, as he continued worming through his checkbook. Last week, Harry’s eldest daughter, Sandra Day O’Connor, was the first woman nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Day was not unimpressed but just now he had a $6.15 discrepancy in his checking account, and the big question was whether to fiddle with that amount or let it ride. leaning on his cane, he emerged from the office into a bright and modestly furnished living room. “Six dollars and fifteen cents,” he snarled. “Ain’t worth the trouble.” Henry A. Day, 83, whom everyone calls Harry, really did want to talk about his 51-year-old daughter.
…
Like many others who grew up in the rural West, Sandra O’Connor’s formative years were molded more by a relationship with the land and the elements rather than close friends. When one lives on one of the planet’s bare spots, 60 miles east of Safford, and roughly 20 miles west of Lordsburg, N.M., one doesn’t live near anyone. Acquaintances are, for the most part, imported.
The Days confirmed that Sandra really didn’t have any close friends in nearby Franklin or Duncan, other than a couple of eccentric cowboys – Bug Quinn and Claude Tippets – who live together near Franklin. Alan Day, Sandra’s 41-year-old brother, advised…
[Photo caption: Harry Day, 83, remembers when he taught daughter Sandra
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sandra D. O’Connor of Phoenix slowed her round of courtesy visits with members of Congress to a walk today. On her schedule were only seven calls, two of which were with fellow Arizonans. The first stop on Capitol Hill was a meeting with Sen. John C. Stennis, D-Miss. Visits with Sen. James A. McClure, R-Wyo., and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, followed. THE THREE men expressed their appreciation for her visits, and each posed for pictures with her outside his office. “She’ll be a welcome addition to the Supreme Court,” Metzenbaum said after meeting Judge O’Connor. He said they did not discuss abortion but did discuss areas of civil rights, civil liberties and antitrust. He said he was impressed, “particularly by her independence of spirit and her feistiness.” FOR LUNCH, Mrs. Dennis DeConcini, wife of the Tucson Democratic senator, was hostess in a private Capitol dining room, where wives of other Senate Judiciary Committee members met the justicedesignate. Judge O’Connor has been accompanied on her three-day tour of congressional offices by White House aides and Assistant Attorney General Robert McConnell, who formerly practiced law in Phoenix. This afternoon Judge O’ Connor was to visit Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Arizona Democratic Reps. , Bob Stump and Morris K. Udall. BOTH ARIZONANS have offered strong endorsements of Judge O’Connor’s nomination as the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Her last call of the day could prove to
