As the first female Supreme Court Justice and the first female state majority leader, Justice O’Connor’s story has inspired many journalists, authors, cartoonists, and groups to celebrate her experience. This catalog explores the media coverage she received throughout her career.
WASHINGTON- President Ronald Reagan. trying to calm the outcry on the right, has launched a personal campaign to win Senate approval of Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman on the US Supreme Court. While Reagan wooed Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, and conservative Sen . Jesse Helms (R-N .C.) even his critics were hailing his choice and its timing. Despite opposition from conservative groups that have questioned her views on abortions and the equal rights amendment , most analysts predicted O’Connor would be confirmed. Senate Judiciary Chairman Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) declared yesterday he expects O’Connor to be confirmed without difficulty. “I expect to support her,” said Thurmond. a key conservative leader. “I would say the Senate will confirm her unless something comes up that we don’t know about. ” Reagan met at the White House with Helms and telephoned Rev. Falwell, asking both to “keep an open mind” about his selection. As Helms left the White House, he said he and “at least five or six other” members of the Senate remained “skeptical.” spokesman for Falwell said he did not commit himself despite the President’s request that he “reconsider .” White House spokesman David R. Gergen said that the overall reaction to the nomination “has generally been very positive.” He said the President hopes that “those who have expressed concern about Judge O’Connor’s views will keep an open mind until they have a chance to hear her express her views and a chance
Newspapers around the country have given President Reagan high marks in their editorial pages for his nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor of Paradise Valley to the Supreme Court. Here is a sample of the editorial reaction: . “Give the President credit for honoring his own campaign promise . . . The right-to-life movement and other extremists are already giving him – and Justice-designate O’Connor – the backhanded honor of opposing the nomination because she showed moderation on some social issues . . . Her total record, we suspect, will show a lawyer, public servant and state court judge of the even temperament and open mind that the nation’s highest court deserves. ” THE NEW YORK TIMES “President Reagan has shown great courage and a sense of balance . . . The president has made a wise choice in Sandra O’Connor.” FORT LAUDERDALE (FLA.) NEWS “It is precisely (Judge O’Connor’s ) failure to conform to any absolutist standard on a single issue of social policy that helps make her appointment all the more a mature one.” WS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER “Mrs. O’Connor’s political beliefs are probably more conservative than we would like; after all, she ls a Republican. But indications are that she is truly a ‘class’ person who can handle the challenge.” ATLANTA CONSTITUTION “Tradition and public attitudes kept qualified women off the Supreme Court in the past . .. The nomination of Judge O’Connor is an important and longoverdue step in the movement to admit qualified women to top positions
California friends and schoolmates remembered Sandra Day O’Connor yesterday as a woman whose ability to excel in previously male-only or male-dominated institutions came naturally because of her intelligence, intensity and outgoing personality. According to many acquaintances from college days, her brilliant record as a student at Stanford University during the tumultuous years following World War II was a clear indication of the things to come later in her life. O’Connor. first woman majority leader of the Arizona Senate in modern times and the only woman member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, was nominated yesterday to be the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. “The thing I remember most about her,” said San Francisco Attorney Atherton Phleger, a Stanford classmate in the late 1940’s, “aside from her brilliance. was that you never thought of her as a woman because she never isolated herself in that way. “She was a complete person. interested in everything and not cloistered.” O’Connor completed her undergraduate degree in economics and graduated third in her law school class in two years at the age of 22. Some years later, she said she had never considered going anywhere else but Stanford, because that was the university her father had hoped to attend before he was forced take over the family farm after the death of his father. In 1946, O’Connor. the only girl in her Arizona high school class who went to college, arrived at Stanford. at the time. the school was
PHOENIX – Supreme Court Justicedesignate Sandra O’Connor was depicted yesterday by former legislative colleagues as a perfectionist who often was frustrated with t.be lawmaking process when she served in the Arizona Senate. But she also was fair, intelligent, brilliant, terrific, thoughtful, moderately conservative, rational, gracious and “a great gal,” according to those who know her. The consensus of her former colleagues was that her perfectionism will serve her well on the Supreme Court. O’Connor herself, at a morning news conference in a jampacked Court of Appeals courtroom, was nearly silent, staying completely away from discussing such substantive issues as her stands on the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion. Protectively watched by a White House deputy press secretary, O’Connor said that to answer substantive questions before reporters would “pre-empt the confirmation process before the (U.S.) Senate.” She read a two-sentence statement saying she was honored to have been chosen and pledging to “do my best to serve the court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the president, to my family and to all the people of this great nation.” O’Connor appeared at the news conference with her husband, John Jay O’Connor III, a prominent Phoenix attorney, and her three sons, Scott, 23, Brian, 21, and Jay, 19. At the conclus!on of her short state- ment, her judicial colleagues and the employees of the Court of Appeals broke into sustained applause. In the state Senate,
President Reagan yesterday nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, a 51-year-old judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, to the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would become the first woman to serve on the court. She also would be the first justice in 25 years to have experience in a state court system. Every person appointed since Justice William J. Brennan Jr. in 1956 has come from the same national channels: a federal judgeship, a federal government job in Washington, or a nationally prominent law firm. “She is truly a ‘person for all seasons.’ ” Reagan said, “possessing those unique qualities of temperament. fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” White House and Justice Department officials expressed confidence that O’Connor’s views are compatible with those espoused over the years by Reagan, who has been highly critical of past Supreme Court decisions on the rights of defendants, busing, abortion and other matters. However, her record of favoring the Equal Rights Amendment, as well as her record on the abortion issue, provoked opposition to her confirmation by the National Right to Life Committee and the Moral Majority. Reagan, who is opposed to abortion, said in response to a question that he was “completely satisfied” with O’Connor’s position on that issue. O’Connor was appointed I to Arizona’s second-highest court in 1979 by Governor Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, after five years
WASHINGTON – In Sandra D. O’Connor, President Reagan has chosen a United States Supreme Court justice whose views are moderately conservative to the extent that her views can be discerned at all. As one of nine judges of the middle-level Arizona Court of Appeals since 1979, Judge O’Connor, 51, has written no opinions that reveal either a political
News analysis
ideology or a judicial philosophy, according to Arizona lawyers. As a member of the state legislature for seven years before that, state Sen. O’Connor was conservative, as are nearly all Arizona Republicans, but she was not predictably conservative on every issue. This could explain why moderates and liberals joined most conservatives Tuesday in praising Mrs. O’Connor’s intelligence, qualifications, and fairness. “IF YOU’RE going to have a Ronald Reagan appointment, you’re not going to do any better,” said Rep. Morris Udall
Woman in a Hurry Juggled Career and Home Life
WASHINGTON . Professionally, Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman ever nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, is a paragon of the modern woman, juggling a successful legislative and judicial career with a home, a family and an active role as a civic leader. “You get the feeling when you’re talking to her that she’s always between trams,” said GeraId M. Caplan, a former Arizona State University law professor who has worked with her. Her roots, however, hem a far different world. She grew up in a turn-of-the-century adobe house near Duncan, Ariz. on the 250-square-mile Lazy B cattle ranch that her grandfather started 100 years ago. The ranch, in the southeastern corner of the state near the New Mexico border, is a world of empty rangeland, dry creekbeds and distant mountains, where the biggest events art:’ the spring and fall roundups. The closest neighbor and nearest post office are 20 miles away. ‘l’he nearest dependable water is often 800 feet or More straight down. There are miles and miles of unpopulated territory,” said June Lackey, the wife of Duncan’s mayor. “We’re big country-with few people.” The isolation of the Lazy B, where O’Connor’s parents still live, is one reason Harry Day sent his eldest daughter away to a girls’ school in El Paso, Tex., when she was a child. She lived there with a maternal grandmother during the school months, but spent her summers and vacations on the ranch. “She had a very good mind and we wanted
“She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good.” – President Ronald Reagan By J. Patterson O’Neill Daily News writer “Multifaceted” might be a better way to describe Sandra O’Connor, the nation’s first female Supreme Court nominee. She’s managed to master the difficult roles of wife, mother and professional,. apparently without a hitch. She’s also socially and athletically active. O’Connor has shot the rapids of several Western rivers, helped build her own home, raised three children and handled the pressures of a fulltime career. She’s a member of the board of directors of several non-profit Arizona organizations and belongs to at least one country club. O’Connor lives with her husband John, a Phoenix attorney, and a son in a sprawling rustic-contemporary Paradise Valley ranch house. The home is secluded and quiet, as is O’Connor. The couple built much of it themselves ahnost 3J yean ago, and her fingerprints still can be seen on the adobe walls. Her son Jay, 19, is & freshman at Stanford; Brian, 21, is a senior at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Zi-year-old Scott is a Stanford graduate, and, as O’Connor put it, “now happily among the employed.” She plays tennis regularly, is an excellent golfer and reads extensively in her spare time, which she manages carefully Friends call O’Connor loyal, thoughtful and considerate. She shuns elaborate social functions
It didn’t taken Sandra O’Connor long to make a good impression on her colleagues. President Reagan yesterday broke two centuries of male exclusivity by naming O’Connor to replace retired Justice Potter Stewart. In the 18 months she ~t on the Arizona Court of Appeals, she won the respect of her male colleagues, who showered her with praise when her name was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. O’Connor, 51, is a former Republican state legislator and superior court judge. She was appointed to the state appeals court in December 1979.
During her years in the Senate, she promoted a modernized mental treatment and commitment law, pushed for constitutional spending limits and supported open-meeting laws. She voluntarily left the Legislature in 1974 and was elected Maricopa County Superior Court judge, a position she held until moving on to the Appeals Court. Majority leader “She has a razor-sharp mind which, combined with a steady temperament, makes her well~ted for the tough questions that would be presented to U.S. Supreme Court justices,” said Appeals Court Judge Donald Froeb. A leader in Arizona GOP politics, she was co-chair of the state committee to re-elect Richard Nixon In 1972. ”She. not only Is an outstanding person In all respects, but she is exceptionally well qualified in the legal field,”‘ Froeb said. Sb first was appointed to the Arizona Senate In 1969, was elected twice to that body and In 1973-74 served,.” as majority .leader .,..;. first . woman in the
President Reagan, in a break with 191 years of tradition, nominated Arizona state Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to be the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Reaction to the Tuesday nomination, in fulfillment of a campaign promise by Reagan to llame a woman to one of the first vacancies on the nation’s highest court, was ironic: He was condemned by conservatives who have long sup- O’Connor ported him, but praised by liberals and feminists who have found little to commend in his administration. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, head of New Right lobby Moral Majority, said that the nomination was a “disaster.” The National Right to Life Committee, a major antiabortion group, pledged an all–0ut fight against her confirmation because of “her consistent support for legal abortion.” In contrast, the National Organization for Women hailed the nomination as a “victory for women’s rights.” Eleanor C. Smeal, president of the organization, contended that increasing political pressure from women’s groups and a drop in poll ratings among women had forced Reagan to the choice of Judge O’Connor. She rated the judge as “sensitive to women’s rights, a moderate on women’s rights.” In Phoenix, Ariz., Judge O’Connor said, “This is a momentous day in my life and the life of my family. I am extremely happy and honored to have been nominated by President Reagan for a position on . the U.S. Supreme Court. “If confirmed, I will do my best to serve
When he announced his intention yesterday to name Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan seems to have fulfilled not one but both of his long-standing commitments on the subject. First , of course , he had promised to search for a qualified woman to fill a vacancy ; not surprisingly, it appears he has easily found one. But second, it looks like the nominee meets the ideological test Mr. Reagan said he would apply-not the test of political conservatism , but the test of belief in a philosophy of judicial restraint. Mr. Reagan is fed up with the imperial judiciary . So are a lot of people . So is the Supreme Court itself . The question is whether they are fed up for the right reasons . About five years ago commentators began to notice that a new kind of judicial activism was abroad in the land . It involved a certain role reversal: The traditionally conservative courts seemed now to be fighting the Executive and Legislature in behalf of the liberal principle of extending government’s protective scope. Moreover , the new activism seemed on its way to becoming entrenched so that it could not be easily reversed by elections or swings of opinion. The courts were operating by expanding the definitions of basic constitutional concepts like standing and due process; such ground once broken is difficult to abandon. The courts also had a seemingly ever-growing field of overall government activity and public interest lawyers to cope with ; this , too, seemed a near irreversib
DUMMERSTON, Vt. – Retired Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said Tuesday that he was “delighted” with President Reagan’s nomination of Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor to succeed him. “She is not only good, she is very, very good,” said Stewart, who officially stepped down Friday after nearly 23 years as a justice. Stewart, traveling through Vermont on his way to his vacation home near Franconia, N.H., said he heard of the appointment on his car radio. Upon arriving at his daughter’s home in Dummerston, Stewart said, he got a call from the White House and “I told the President I was pleased with his choice.” Reagan had tried to reach Stewart before the official announcement was made, said Elliot Gerson, one of Stewart’s law clerks. The White House switchboard placed calls to the Connecticut house where Stewart spent Monday night, to his daughter’s house and to his son’s law office in Brattleboro. Stewart called Mrs. O’Connor “a very well qualified person, a fme choice,” and said he is not surprised that a woman had been chosen to succeed him.
President Reagan has appointed Mrs Sandra O'Connor to the Supreme Court, ending two centuries of male exclusivity. Announcing her appointment…
THE DECISION of President Reagan to nominate Sandra Day O’Connor of Arizona for a seat on the Supreme Court is far more than the fulfillment of a campaign commitment. It marks the end of a long road for all those women who have ever practiced or aspired to practice law. Just 109 years ago, the court on which Judge O’Connor will sit if the Senate confirms this nomination upheld the power of the states to prevent women from becoming lawyers. The vestiges of the thinking that produced that now unthinkable discrimination linger on. But the ascension of Judge O’Connor to the nation’s highest court would help eliminate more of them, regardless of how she votes on constitutional questions. The fact that a woman has, at long last, been selected for one of these seats of great power will make the continuance of sexual barriers in lesser jobs more difficult to justify. In some ways, when you think of it, it is incredible .that this should have to come as such a momentous event in 1981, that it should have this aspect of novelty and “breakthrough” to it. And we hasten to suggest that it will merely compound the grotesque thinking that has created such a situation if the great ‘legal and political powers-that-be regard a seat on, the court for one female as some kind of equity. Female justices should not be considered as some oneof-a-kind token or representative or quota-filler. Mr. Reagan has helped redeem the shame of his predecessors who wouldn’t quite dare to do what he has done. He
WASHINGTON – Antiabortion groups yesterday denounced the nomination of Judge Sandra D. O’Connor to the Supreme Court and vowed to fight her confirmation, but no Senate members immediately stepped forward to lead such a fight and the initial reaction to the nomination was favorable. “I commend the President for the courage of his decision,” said Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr., the majority leader. “I am delighted with his choice, and I pledge my full support for her confirmation by the full Senate.” The National Right to Life Committee, an amalgam of anti-abortion lobbying groups, said it would mobilize its members to “prevail upon senators to oppose this nomination” on the ground that O’Connor was “pro-abortion” as a member of the Arizona Legislature. “We feel betrayed by the President,” said Paul Brown, chairman of the Life Amendment Political Action Committee, who contended that Mr. Reagan violated a campaign pledge to support anti-abortion positions and appointees. In contrast, the National Organization for Women hailed the nomination as a “victory for women’s rights.” Eleanor C. Smeal, president of the organization, rated the judge as “sensitive to women’s rights, a moderate on women’s rights.” The only sitting Supreme Court justice to comment was Harry Blackmun. Blackmun said the appointment “has been anticipated for some time.” He said he did not know O’Connor personally, but had heard “very favorable” reports about her. Any ‘Senate opposition was thought likely to be led by
WASHING TON – A furious storm of criticism exploded yesterday over President Reagan’s nomination of Arizona judge Sandra D. O’Connor as the first woman in history to serve on the Supreme Court. Outraged conservatives said they would move to block her confi1matio n because of her pa.c;t record of supporting abortio n and the Equal Rights Am , , 1ent. Conserv .,.t1 e groups, including the Rev. Jerry Fal- well’s Moral Majority and the Right-to-Life movement, flooded the White House with more than 5000 telegrams and phone calls protesting the state Appeals Court judge’s nomination. “This is going to be one tough fight,” Richard Viguerie, who runs one of the most sophisticated political direct-mail operations in the nation backing conservative causes, told The Post.
“We’ve been insulted and we’ve been betrayed and I’d rather take a physical beating than fight the President. But this is what we’re going to have to do,” said Viguerie, who has raised tens of millions of dollars.
“President Reagan’s nomination is a mistake. Either the President did not have sufficient information about her background in the area of social issues or chose to ignore that information,” Falwell said.
“Her record indicates she is not an opponent of abortion on demand and is opposed to attempts to curb this biological holocaust which has taken the lives of more than 10 million innocent babies since 1973.”
Reagan named O’Connor yesterday to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by retired Justice Potter
WASHINGTON, July 7 – Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinions in her 18 months as an Arizona appeals court judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent. But they shed little light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge O’Connor, a former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, is widely regarded as conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge, but those assertions have been disputed by people who sat with her in the Arizona Legislature.
A review of Judge O’Connor’s 29 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial issues that the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
The White House indicated tonight that Judge O’Connor was a supporter of the death penalty. Michael K. Deaver, the President’s deputy chief of staff, said that Judge O’Connor had been the author of an Arizona law providing for the death penalty and had sentenced at least one person under the law. However, no one has been executed in Arizona since she first became a Superior Court judge there
Arizonans Praise Record, Say Stands Hard to Predict
Her benchside manner is so st.em, her stare so penetrating, that some young lawyers call her “laser eyes.” Her written opinions tick off the law, tick off the precedents and fit in the facts, all without rhetoric or aside§. They are the work of a technician, not an ideologue. In a stat.e where ideological extremes flourish, Sandra D. O’Connor has shown a knack for avoiding them throughout her career as a lawyer, state senator and judge. As a politician, she has been on either side of the Equal Rights Amendment and the abortion issue. As a judge, she is described as a tough sentencer, capable of imposing the death penalty. . But as she demonstrated in a 1978 murder case, she is just as capable of wiping out her own sentence and ordering a new trial when she thinks something has gone wrong in the process of criminal justice. For these reasons, her nomination was endorsed by virtually all those who know her in Arizona, from conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater to the head of the Arizona American Civil Liberties Union. At the same time, the state’s lawyer have given her consistently high marks in the bar association’s ratings of judges in the state. And for the same reasons, most lawyers said it would be risky t.o predict how she might vote on many of the controversial issues that will confront the Supreme Court. At 51 she is young for a Supreme Court justice, and her term of service could carry her far beyond any of the current
In naming the first woman to be on the nation’s highest court, President Reagan has picked a well-regarded Arizona judge who is widely praised for her scholarship, common sense and reluctance to allow personal opin ions sway her interpretation of the law. Colleagues in the home state of Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, a judge on the state’s intermediate-level Court of Appeals, described her as a jurist who would not be an activist for social change, but nonetheless would make her presence known among the eight rnen on the Supreme Court. “She is obviously a conservative,” said one Phoenix attorney who asked not to be identified, “but she’s a thinking conservative who is compassionate and very concerned about people.” Among friends and foes alike, the consen sus appeared to be that O’Connor would be an “excellent” addition to the court who is well-qualified to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart regardless of her sex. As to where she would fit on the nine-member court, most of her peers and colleagues declined to speculate, although her conservative background made it clear that she would not be joining the dwindling liberal bloc on the court. ‘One Can Never Tell’ One former Arizona law professor who has
米最高裁に女性判事 大統領公約果たす “保守派”ォコーナー夫人 【ワシントン七日ll小川特派員】レーガン米大統領は七日午前、全国テレビ会見で、さる三日引退したポッター.スチユアー卜 最高裁判事の後任にアリゾナ州高裁の女性判事サンドラ.D.オコーナー夫人(五一) を指名すると発表した。同大統領は昨十月の選挙演説でおこなった「最高裁判事に女性を任命する」との公約を果たしたわけだが、米最高裁に女性判事が任命されるのは百九十一年の最高裁史上これが初めてである。 オコーナー夫人は生まれたアリゾナ州で政治、司法の両分野で男性に劣らない手腕を発揮したと評価されている。比軟的柔軟な考えを持っているとされているが、レーガン大統頜好みの保守的傾向の裁判官だとされている。 レーガン大統頜は、同夫人に対する連邦捜査局(FBI)の調査が完了次第、この指名を上院に伝え、承認を求める。オコーナー夫人はスタンフォード大学の法学部大学院を五二年に卒業し、力リフォル二ア州のサンメテオ郡で次席検事を務めた。その後、アリゾナ州に庚り、六年間弁護士事務所を開業し、六五年から六九年までアリゾナ州の次長検事を務めた。六九年から七五年まではアリゾナ州上院議員に選ばれ、その間、多数派の共和党院内総務を務めた。州議会で女性が院内総務を務めたのは同夫人が全米で最初だった。七五年、オコーナー夫人は選挙でフェニックス市を含むアリゾナ州マリコパ郡上級裁判所判事に当選し、七九年に同州のラビッ卜知事が同夫人を同州高裁判事に任命し、現在に至っている。州上院議員時代は、米国で論議を呼んでいる人工中絶や男女平等憲法修正案に条件付きで賛成している。政洽思想的には、柔軟性のある保守派とされている。大学時代のクラスメートだった夫のジョン氏は弁護士。二人の間には三人の子息がいる。
T . H_ E nomination of Arizona state Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court bo~ors the wom~n of America, the people of Arizona and the Judge herself. lf approved by the Senate, as she should be Judge O’Connor will be the 102nd m~mber of the land’s highest court and the first woman justice in the court’s 191-year history. She will give the court its second sitting member from Arizona, truly an amazing accomplishment for a small state. The other Arizonan is Justice William Rehnquist, a law school classmate of Judge O’Connor. Finally, elevation to ~he Supre~e Col!rt will be the crowning achievement m the hfe of the ranch girl from Duncan who climbed the ladder of public service through the state attorney general’s office, the state Legislature, the Superior Court system and the Arizona Court of Appeals. Sandra O’Connor has helped the state in many extra-judicial ways. As a board member she persuaded Ariiona’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield to unite, before the national organizations did so. As president of the Heard Museum, she helped Arizona’s Indian tribes to achieve the recognition they deserve. As a director of the Arizona Academy, she motivated an effective statewide Town Hall unique in America. Judge O’Connor has some rough days ahead. Her every act will be under public scrutiny. There will be a lot of discussion and ex~ination of Judge O’Connor’s feminist views, which perhaps have best been described by a long-time friend. “She never lets you forget she’s
Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who sponsored Judge Sandra O’Connor of his home state , for an appointment as the first woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice, said in El Paso that news of her nomination by President Reagan was “wonderful.” Goldwater flew into Fort Bliss for about a four-hour visit Tuesd&y with no notice to the media and Fort Bliss officials said they were unable to release any details of his visit. GOLDWATER, GRINNING BROADLY when asked about Mrs. O’Connor’s appointment, said “It is just wonderful, I talked to President Reagan about it Monday. I have known her ever since she has been in Phoenix and I told the president he couidn’t find a better person to fill the post.” Goldwater said “I could find a hundred competent woman lawyers but none that could do the job she will do.” The Arizona senator, a long time member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee of which Texas Sen. John Tower, a fellow Republican, is chairman, said of his visit to Fort Bliss, “I am just trying to get reacquainted with the army. I used to be an infantry officer before joining the Air Force and I am now visiting U.S. Army bases to reacquaint myself with their missions.” GOLDWATER IS A RETIRED U.S. Air Force Reserve general. Fort Bliss Public Affairs Officer Lt. Col. Edward McDonald told the Herald-Post Goldwater was on the base but said he could not give any more details. The Senator arrived and left in one of the Military Airlift Command airplanes that is based at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington,
WASHINGTON -President Reagan announced Tuesday that he will nominate Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, the first woman to be chosen for the nation’s highest tribunal in its 191-year history. Reagan described the 51-year-old jurist, former state legislator and Republican activist as “truly a person for all seasons” who possesses the “unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 (Supreme Court) brethren who have preceded her.” in selecting O’Connor, the President fulfilled a promise. he made during the 1980 presidential election campaign-to appoint a woman to the court. In doing so, he won the praise of women’s groups that. have opposed many of his policies. But his choice drew the wrath of some conservatives and anti-abortion. The public’s view of women on the bench has changed sharply over the years. Story, Page 5. lion groups, which vowed to fight O’Connor’s confirmation by the Senate because of what they consider to be her pro-abortion votes as an Arizona legislator. White House spokesman Larry Speakes, however, reported that O’Connor had told the President when he interviewed her in the Oval Office last tednesd~y that “she is personally opposed to abor- .. lion and it is especially abhorrent to her.” , White House deputy chief of staff Michael K. Deaver, who sat in on . the presidential interview, said Reagan was particularly impressed by O’Connor as
Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s court opinions are short, clearly written and stress interpeting the law. That attracted President Reagan and led to her nomination Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to her longtime friend and colleague, House Minority Leader Burton Barr, R-PhoeniL “She will judge, she will not legislate,” Barr said. “That’s what Reagan wants. He wants them (justices) to sit up on the bench and decide what the law says. She will do that.” Sources close to Reagan said he saw in Judge O’Connor another Justice William Rehnquist, 56, a fellow Arizonan and solid conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon. Rehnquist and Judge O’Connor were classmates at Stanford University and were co-editors of the Stanford Law Review. In her months as a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, an analysis of her opinions shows that Judge O’Connor has not been faced with controversial legal questions and has not written ihe kind of legal opinions that make history. Instead, she has dealt mainly with routine issues of workmen’s compensation and divorce. However, she has little patience with criminals’ claims that they were denied their rights. In the past 16 months, she has written the court’s opinions in decisions that refused to let a divorced woman share in her ex-husband’s workmen’s compensation payments; declined to create a new right to sue lawyers and witnesses for testimony that comes out at a trial; and opened up the city of Mesa
WASHINGTON – Few would have predicted that President Reagan’s first nominee to the Supreme Court would be greeted by harsh opposition from the National Right to Life Committee and kind words from the American Civil Liberties Union. Yet that is just what happened to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, a conservative Arizona judge and a Stanford Law School classmate of William H. Rehnquist, the U.S. Supreme Court’s most doctrinaire conservative. Anti-abortion groups noted that Reagan had endorsed the Republican platform’s pledge to appoint federal judges who “respect traditional family values and the sanctity of human life.” And now, National Right to Life Committee president J.C. Wilke complained, the nomination of O’- Connor was “a repudiation of the Republican platform.” As a two-term senator in the Arizona legislature, where she was . the first woman in the nation to be a majority leader, O’Connor voted to legalize abortion in 1970 and against a resolution urging Congress to pass an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in 1974, according to the committee’s research. Despite all this flak, lawyers, politicians and journalists in Phoenix describe O’Connor as extremely bright and analytical, a superb political leader – and not controversial. “Senator O’Connor has the reputation of being a conservative but certainly not a doctrinaire conservative.” said Louis Rhodes, director of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. “I don’t know if she’s ever been involved in anything
Members of the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group vowed Tuesday to seek to block the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Feminists, on the other hand, said her nomination was a “great victory.” At the core of the controversy is Judge O’Connor’s positions on abortion and the F.qual Rights Amendment while serving from 1969 to 1974 in the Arizona State Senate. Dr. Carolyn Gerster of Phoenix, internal-affairs chairman of the National Right to Life Committee, said her group will appeal to President Reagan to reconsider his nomination of Judge O’Connor, 51, of the Arizona Court of Appeals. “We are dismayed,” Dr. Gerster said. “We will work very, very hard to convince the president that he received erroneous information and ask him to withdraw her name.” Dr. Genter said that during a meeting with Reagan in January she was satisfied that a Supreme Court justice candidate’s position on abortion would be a “prime concern.” She said pro-life factions, which helped elect Reagan, feel betrayed , because he has not fulfilled a promise to appoint judges who ” “respect traditional human values and the sanctity of life.” In anticipation of Judge O’Connor’s appointment, Dr. Gerster on Sunday sent to Reagan a packet detailing the nominee’s voting record on abortion. Judge O’Connor’s nominatioi;1 also has been criticized by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, which opposes the F.qual Rights Amendment and abortion. He said
WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a modern paragon, juggling a successful legislative and judicial career with a home, a family and an active role as a civic leader. “You get the feeling when you’re talking to her that she’s always between trains,” said Gerald ,Caplan, a former Arizona State University law professor who has worked with her. Her roots, however, are in a far different world. She grew up in a turn-of-the-century adobe house on the 250.square-mile Lazy-B cattle ranch that her grandfather started 100 years ago near Duncan, Ariz. The ranch, in the southeastern corner of the state near the New Mexico border, is a world of empty rangeland, dry creek beds and distant mountains, where the biggest events are the spring and fall roundups. The closest neighbor and nearest Post office are 20 miles away. The nearest dependable water is often 800 feet or more straight down. The isolation of the Lazy-B, where her parents still live, is one reason Harry Day sent his daughter away to a girts school in El Paso, Texas, when she was just a child. During the schoQl months, she lived there with a maternal grandmother, but spent her summers and vacations on the ranch. Sandra Day O’Connor’s exposure to city life and its educational OPPortunities reaped its eventual rewards: She was graduated from Stanford University in 1950 and, two years later, was graduated with great distinction, third in her class, from its law school. Along
For Sandra O’Connor, the U.S. supreme Court Justice-designate born in El Paso and raised on the family ranch ‘straddling the Arizona-New Mexico border, success was part of life that was “just supposed to be,” according to a Houston cousin who shared her childhood.
Born Sandra Day, the girl drove a tractor when she was 10, rode a horse and helped round up the cattle on the Lazy B, her family’s ranch northwest of El Paso and south of Duncan, Ariz., her relatives said. In winters, she attended school In El Paso.
“WE WERE CONSIDERED people. We were not considered little girls who can’t do anything. We played dolls, but were were certainly good with screwdrivers, nails and roundups too,” said Flournoy D. Manzo, who in childhood was always, seemingly, at the side of her year-younger first cousin.
Manzo, now a University of Houston administrator, and Evelyn Wooten, Manzo’s mother and O’Connor’s aunt, Tuesday afternoon were enjoying the thrill of a close relative becoming an historic figure and sharing their joy by opening up the family album. Out spilled photos of two young girls enjoying themselves on a beach, in family and school groups and with horses. Also, out came the O’Connor family holiday cards. One shows her and husband John, an attorney, backpacking.
A 1974 CARD HAS the O’Connors, included the three sons, pictured with powdered wigs and sitting on the “O’Connor Supreme Court.” Sandra O’Connor is listed as “co-chief justice, junior grade,” and her election to the Superior
WASHINGTON – Ending almost two centuries of tradition, President Reagan announced Tuesday that he is nominating the first woman to the United States Supreme Court – Arizona jurist Sandra D. O’Connor. Mrs. O’Connor, 51, a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals who has received a highly favorable rating from the state bar association, was named to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart. The President, making the historic announcement in the White House briefing room, called Mrs. O’Connor “truly a person for all seasons” and urged her swift confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled hearings on Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. Capitol Hill sources said Tuesday that she would encounter little difficulty getting confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate despite opposition from the anti-abortion movement MAJORITY LEADER. Howard Baker (R, tenn.) pledged to head the Senate effort backing Mrs O’Connor’s confirmation. “I commend the President for the courage of his decision to name a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Baker said. Reagan’s nomination of Mrs. O’Connor was immediately challenged by the antiabortion lobby because she had supported less restrictive abortion laws. DR. JOHN C. WILLKE of Cincinnati, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said: “The entire pro-life movement will oppose her confirmation.” Reagan, however, told reporters Tuesday that
WASHINGTON President Reagan appealed to a wide range of his constituency – and won back many disaffected Republican women – with his choice for the Supreme Court, but he continued to alienate the far right. The choice of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first woman on the nation’s highest court was superb politics for Reagan. It strengthens his credibility he pledged early in his presidential campaign that one of his first appointments to the high court would be a woman. REAGAN already has gotten more credit than most of his predecessors for keeping his campaign promises. It wins back to his corner thousands of rank-and-file Republican women who were in near open rebellion over the administration’s meager record of finding women for top jobs in Washington. At the same time, it takes away an argument from Equal Rights Amendment supporters that the ERA is needed because the Reagan administration is no friend of women.
[Photo caption: Gazette Photo Judge Sandra O’Connor’s nomination won back many disaffected Republican women for President Reagan and was hailed as superb politics.] BUT THE nomination outraged the easily outraged Moral Majority, which vowed to fight the nomination on the grounds Mrs. O’Connor, while in the Arizona Senate, took stands indicating support for ERA and abortion. One leader of the anti-abortion movement, theologian Harold O.J. Brown, declared: “Reagan is absolutely finished with pro-life people, absolutely. They are so betrayed by this that he will
Nominated as the first woman to the nation’s highest court, State Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor said she “never thought (her nomination) would be a reality.” But being first is nothing new for the 51-year-old O’Connor, who President Reagan chose Tuesday to fill the vacancy of retired Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. In 1969 she became Arizona’s first female legislator, and she went on to become Senate majority leader in 1973. She was the first and only woman to hold the job in either house of the state Legislature. Born March 26, 1930 on a ranch near Duncan, O’Connor has an extensive background in law and politics, and she rates superlatives from her col• leagues in both arenas. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Frank X. Gordon said'()’Connor has “philosophical leanings that a lot of us as well as the president would like to see.” But at least one assistant Arizona attorney general, who describes himself as a liberal, believes O’Connor’s politics haven’t affected her philosophy of the law. “I’ve had several cases before her, and all of her decisions have been fair. I don’t think her political beliefs will have that much to do with her decisions in Washington.” O’Connor was one of only five women in her class at the law school in 1952, and graduated third in her class. She also was a member of the board of editors of the Stanford Law Review. She man:ied another classmate, John Jay O’Connor m, now a Phoenix lawyer. They have three sons. Her first job was as deputy county
PRESIDENT REAGAN made U.S. history yesterday by appointing the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In a brief statement to reporters at the White House, Mr Reagan confirmed that he bad chosen Mrs Sandra O’Connor, a Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, to succeed Justice Potter Stewart, who retired last month. Mrs O’Connor, 51, who has been described as “a judicial conservative but flexible,” now faces final clearance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Senate confirmation. The choice of a woman fulfills a campaign commitment by the President. But he stressed yesterday that he was not putting her name forward simply because she was female. That would not h ave been fair to women or to future generations. The President described Mrs O’Connor as ” truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good.” The appointment could be the first of several opportunities that Mr Reagan will have to stamp his conservative beliefs on the face of American society-a chance denied to President Carter, who made no Supreme Court appointments. Service on the court is for life, unless a justice chooses to retire, and five of its nine members are now over 70. The importance of the Supreme Court in moulding American society is often underestimated outside the U.S., where attention tends to focus on Presidents and politicians. An active Republican, Mrs O’Connor served two full terms in the
This article was prepared by Stephen Wenniel, Robert E. Taylor and Monica Langley.
WASHINGTON – President Reagan picked Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court, a selection that may bring about more of a symbolic than a philosophical change on the court. If, as seems likely, she is confirmed as the 102nd Justice in the 191-year history of the Supreme Court Mrs. O’Connor will become its first woman member. While her nomination holds a symbolic importance for women, the philosophical impact is less certain and it may be several years before the effect Is fully realized. The 51-year-old Phoenix Republican Is described by Arizona lawyers as moderate to conservative with much of the independence and judicial restraint that marked her predecessor on the high court. “It’s going to be Potter Stewart all over again,” says John Frank, a Phoenix attorney and longtime Supreme Court watcher. Classmate of Rehnquist Those who know her say she Is less fixed In Ideology than Justice William Rehnquist, the court’s most hard-and-fast conservative, who was a classmate at Stanford University Law School and with whom she has remained in contact. Charles Ares, a University of Arizona law professor, says she isn’t “a right-wing ideologue. I guess that means she’ll be in the middle.” On some specific issues, her views appear to be consistent with the President’s, according to administration aides and others. As a state senator, she helped draft death penalty legislation
SINCE her graduation from law school at the age of 22, Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated Tuesday to . the U.S. Supreme Court, has made her mark both as a judge and as a Republican politician in Arizona Mrs. O’Connor, 51, is a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was born in 1930, in El Paso, Tex., but she grew up on a cattle ranch in southern Arizona and claims that as her native state. She received a bachelor’s degree in economics with “great distinction” from Stanford University in 1950. She earned her law degree two years later, also from Stanford and also with honors . She ranked third in her law class; the person who ranked No. 1 was fellow Westerner William Rehnquist, who has been on the Supreme Court since 1972. Another classmate was Frank X. Gordon, now an Arizona Supreme Court justice. “‘SHE’S EXCEPTIONALLY well qualified, with a tremendous background in politics,” Gordon said after learning of her nomination. She was married to a classmate, John O’Connor, and remained in CaHfornia while he finished law school. She worked for a time as an assistant district attorney in San Mateo County. She joined the Arizona bar in 1957, practiced briefly in Maryvale, Ariz., and was an assistant attorney general from 1965 to 1969. , In 1969, she was appointed to the state senate and subsequently was elected to two terms as a Republican. She was elected majority leader, the first woman to win such a powerful state position. She received 75 per cent of the vote, more than any other
Washington (News Bureau)-President Reagan’s nomination of a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court has created a major political problem for him by angering some of his staunchest supporters-the “New Right” conservatives of the Moral Majority and the right-to-life movement who form the bedrock ot his political base. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of Moral Majority, predicted that “church people will desert (Reagan) in droves” because of the nomination of Sandra D. O’Connor. “Either the President did not have sufficient information about Judge O’Connor’s background in social issues , or he chose to Ignore the information,” the Rev. Falwell said. DB. CAROLYN GERSTER of Phoenix, former president of the National Right-to-Life Committee, said that O’Connor had twice voted in favor of abortion while a member of the Arizona Senate. Conservatives also contended that O’Connor was a member of a Senate committee that introduced a pro-equal rights amendment bill. Sandra O’Connor had a consistent and strong pro-abortion voting record while a senator in Arizona,” charged J.C. Wilke of Cincinnati, president of the National Right-to-Life Committee. He accused Reagan of Ignoring the pledge of the 1980 GOP platform to appoint judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” But the President, in announcing O’Connor’s nomination yesterday at the White House, said he was “completely satisfied” with her record on right-to-life Issues. He did not elaborate. WHILE ANTI-ABORTI
Change anticipated •a woman WASHINGTON (AP) – What physical changes would the marble temple the Supreme Court calls home undergo if Sandra D. O’Connor becomes its first female justice? “Absolutely none,” court spokesman Barrett McGurn said Tuesday, minutes after President Reagan nominated Judge O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals to the nation’s highest court. But a rumor persists among court employees that a bathroom fixture “inappropriate” for women will be removed from a small restroom just off the justices’ conference room. The court officially dropped the “Mr. Justice” designation from titles last November, choosing instead just plain “Justice” before the names of members. Speculation was that the change, made without explanation or fanfare, was aimed at making thing.s less complicated in the event of a woman joining the court. If confirmed by the Senate, O’Connor will become the first woman in the court’s 191-year history to serve as a justice.
WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, doesn’t fit easily into any mold. Though described by friends and associates as politically conservative, she has avoided ideological labels during almost six years as a state trial and appeals court judge in Arizona while winning widespread praise for her careful, concise and judicious approach to legal issues. AND DURING four years as Republican majority leader of the state Senate in the early 1970s, she took several liberal stands – particularly on women’s issues – that already have evoked angry opposition to her nomination from right-wing political groups. “A person for all seasons,” is the way President Reagan described this 51-year-old Arizonan in announcing he wanted her to break the 191-year, male-only tradition of the high court. That view was resoundingly and repeatedly echoed during interviews with some of the people who know Judge O’Connor best. “SANDRA IS NOT a crusader on any issue,” said William Jacquin, who heads the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and was president of the state Senate when Judge O’Connor was majority leader from 1971-1974. “One of her great attributes is that she faces each issue as a problem and then looks for the best possible solutions.” Robert Broomfield, presiding judge of the Maricopa County (Phoenix) Superior Court, where Judge O’Connor served from 1975 until she was named to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979, said “she believes in following the law.
Analysis Includes interpretation by the writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Although she proved herself-a scholarly and lucid writer in her short tenure on Arizona’s appeals court, Judge Sandra O’Connor never really faced the hot legal and constitutional issues of the day. An analysis of nearly all the opinions she’s written in 1½ years on the state bench shows that she dealt mainly with routine matters, such as workmen’s compensation and divorces. That means her supporters and detractors must look elsewhere for the views of President Reagan’s nominee to become the first female member of the Supreme Court – particularly in the areas of abortion and women’s rights. For some, that search already ls over. Within hours of Tuesday’s announcement, the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group announced they would oppose the nomination of the Republican jurist. A spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee said the opposition would be based on stances O’Connor took as a member of the Arizona state Senate. But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said O’Connor had told the president “she ls personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorrent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.” Although she declined to discuss “substantive issues” pending her confirmation, O’Connor told a news conference in Phoenix Tuesday she has special “appreciation for the legislative process.”
WASHINGTON – In the long run. the most significant fact about Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor may turn out to be not that she is a woman but that she has served as a state legislator and state judge. O’Connor’s experience at the state level is almost as unusual for the modern-day Supreme Court ru: is her gender . For the past quartercentury, virtually every person appointed to the Supreme Court has come there from the same national channels: a federal judgeship, a federal government job in Washington or a nationally prominent law practice. Not since Justice William J. Brennan Jr. came to Washington from the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1956 has any justice been appointed with experience in a state court system. None of the members of the current court has ever served in a state legislature. If O’Connor gives the justices a ground-level view of the way state courts and legislatures operate, her voice could prove highly influential. She could, in fact, become a powerful advocate on behalf of President Reagan’s oft-stated desire to give greater power to the states. The Supreme Court is regularly asked to pass judgment on the validity of laws enacted by state legislatures and rulings by state courts. Generally, the justices find it much easier to rule unconstitu- . tional the actions of these state bodies than the laws passed by Congress or the actions of federal agencies. • In the court term that has just ended, for example, the Supreme Court moved further in the
Sandra Day O’Connor, trim and festively clad in cowboy denim and boots, walked quietly away from the dust-stirring clamor of about 700 guests and seated herself on a low, shaded wall while a Western band warmed up.
Last Sept. 20 marked the 100th anniversary of the Lazy B ranch where four generations of the Day family have grown up, never straying too far.
SANDRA, THE OLDEST of Harry Day’s children, earlier took her place beside her mother Ada Mae, brother Alan and sister Ann (Mrs. Scott Alexander) and long-time foreman Webb Cole atop a wagon that was circled by friends, relatives and guests.
Each got up from their folding chair and spoke briefly into a microphone, sharing greetings, a special anecdote or two and some slightly choking sentiments about the landmark gathering.
Sandra, with a permanent and warm smile fixed on her face, had watched her father with clear-eyed adoration as the 83-year-old patriarch stiffly fidgeted with the microphone and then launched past some brief public shyness into a reel of momentum-gathering recollections of ranch life that were lost among the mostly younger crowd, who applauded and laughed eagerly.
SANDRA’S SHORT, WELCOMING remarks were polished, gracious and almost unnoticeably forgotten – the way it was supposed to be. After all, the day was designed for nostalgia and Harry Day.
She sat quietly on the wall in front of her girlhood home and patiently studied the throng in front of her while dust sifted upward in the heat of the breezeless
The nomination of Arizona Appeals Court Justice Sandra D. O’Connor for the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat drew an almost universal reaction from Michigan jurists, feminists and lawyers Tuesday: applause for President Reagan’s selection of a woman candidate and bewilderment about the candidate herself. Even Cornella Kennedy, the U.S. Court of Appeals judge who was widely regarded as a leading choice for the nomination, said she knew only what she had read in press accounts about O’Connor. Kennedy said she was pleased a woman had been nominated. She added, “I would have been more pleased if it were I.” John Felkens, chief judge of the U.S. District Court iri Michigan’s eastern district, . said he was pleased Reagan Cornfha Kennedy had chosen a woman “but terribly disappointed that it is not my friend Cornella Kennedy.” And former Michigan Republican senator Robert Griffin, who said he had lobbied for Kennedy in Washington “to the extent I could,” praised Reagan for fulfilling his campaign promise by nominating a woman. “Of course,” he said from his Washington office, “I was hoping the choice would be Cornelia Kennedy or (Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice) Mary Coleman.” LOCAL WOMEN judges and lawyers praised Reagan’s choice of a woman. “I am very pleased to think I will look upon that
Sandra O’Connor may have just won national acclaim, but she’s had the admiration of various Arizona State University professors for a long time. She’s been making friends in Tempe over the years as an active supporter of the College of Law. Besides being on the college’s board of visitors for a year, O’Connor has served on panels critiquing law students’ performances during staged classroom trials. Dean Alan Matheson said O’Connor’s heavy involvement began in the 1970s, when she pushed for a law internship program at the Legislature. Burdened with heavy court dockets, she helped law professor Robert Misner produce a videotape of a mock murder trial he still uses in criminal law classes. “She is very concerned about maintaining the quality of law education in Arizona,” Misner said. “Her time was very valuable as a judge, yet she thought enough about the future of the legal profession to dedicate her time to the law school. “She has been an active supporter in helping to assure that Arizona has a bright, young crop of attorneys.” Misner called O’Connor “extremely bright, forthright and straightforward.” Criminal Justice Professor Peter Haynes said he knows O’Connor through her work in the Legislature for court administration reform. That background and her concern with equal rights will help her “fit in well” with Chief Justice Warren Burger, he said. Haynes remembers a college commencement address in which O’Connor recalled her graduation from law school in 1952. “She said she
Washington
Sandra D. O’Connor’s opinions during her 18 months as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent.
They do not shed much light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A former Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate, O’Connor is widely regarded as
conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record, however.,has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge.
A review of O’Connor’s 30 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed
none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial constitutional issues the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and
the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Thus it appears to be far too early to determine whether the ideologically divided court will become more conservative or…
I always wanted her to run for governor,” Rep. Burton Barr was saying. “She could have done the job.” Barr, R-Phoenix, picked up a cowboy hat and placed it on his head. The hat sat there, straight on, with no tilt. Barr raised his head and stuck his chin out. He grinned.
“And Sandra O’Connor could have won, too,” he said. “She could have been governor. And when she got in office, she would have been tough. She can stand up. She’s got all the courage she needs.”
The Arizona House majority leader goes back a long way with state Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor, who on Tuesday morning became the first woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I remember when she was majority leader of the state Senate and we worked together to get bills passed,” Barr said. “What fights we had to get some of those bills through.
“I remember one time back in 1974. She had gotten her bill through the Senate. I was still working on getting mine through the House.
“It was like mass murder to get this particular bill through.
“‘Can you do it?’ she kept asking. ‘We can do it,’ I kept saying.
“Finally, she was waiting for me outside the caucus room after I got the agreement that the bill would go through.
“‘How’d we do?’ she asked.
“‘We got it,’ I said, ‘just like I said we would.'”
Barr smiled again.
“Well, there were tears coming down her cheeks she was so happy, and she gave me a big hug.
“‘Hey,’ I said to her, ‘we’re majority leaders. None of this emotion in public.”
Barr’s secretary
The woman likely to become the first woman to sit on the United States _Supreme Court doesn’t stand to any side, according to her Houston cousin “She’s almost a middle-of-the-roader. And I don’t think she’s a feminist, either . I think she’s interested in people, rather than men or women per se. That’s just the way we were both brought up,” says Flournoy Manzo, director of the International Trade Institute at the University of Houston and a first cousin to Judge Sandra D. O’Connor. Contacted Tuesday after President Reagan nominated Mrs . O’Connor, an Arizona appellate court Judge and a former Arizona state senator, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart, Mrs. Manzo described the cousin she grew up with in El Paso as “a very intelligent and astute person who s interested in everything.” In fact, says Mrs. Manzo, when Reagan first suggested that he might give a woman the Supreme Court nod, we all immediately thought of my cousin.” . Not only has she had an outstanding career, but she’s been extremely active in both the Republican Party and state polltics in Arizona. She was even asked by some people there to run for governor four year s ago, but she decided against that .” Mrs. Manzo says. “At least to us, she seemed a very likely candidate.” Mrs. Manzo, 52, says she and Judge O’Connor have remained very close since the days when they used to alternate spending winters in El Paso at her family home and summers at her cousin’s
Conservative but not an ideologue. Sharpminded, with a thorough knowledge of the law. Intellectual. Organized. Fair. A legal technician. In the words of President Reagan, “a person for all seasons.” The descriptive accolades arrived in torrents Tuesday, just minutes after Reagan nominated Sandra O’Connor, 51, an Arizona appellate court judge who was born and raised on a ranch in the small mining town of Duncan, to be the first woman to take a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
There was widespread praise for the appointment from Republicans and Democrats, feminists and political moderates. Only anti-abortionists and farright political groups like the Moral Majority, alarmed by O’CoMor’s legislative record on abortion and the equal rights amendment, protested the action. It appeared unlikely they would muster the political clout to derail Senate approval of her nomination. O’Connor, who learned the news Monday night when Reagan telephoned her, exhibited a reaction that mirrored both her legislative and court record: subdued. “This is a momentous day in my life and the life of my family,” O’Connor said. “If confirmed I will do my best to serve the court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the president, to my family and to all the people of this great nation.” An analysis of her voting and court record, coupled with interviews of professional colleagues, shows O’Connor emerging as a well-qualified, sharp-minded magistrate who has developed a conservative
WASHINGTON – President Reagan broke the all-male tradition on the Supreme Court on Tuesday by nominating Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart. Judge O’Connor, 51, becomes the first woman ever nominated to sit on the high court. Reagan, who made the announcement at a news conference, said of Judge O’Connor, “She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.” In remarks prepared for delivery later Tuesday in Chicago at a fundraiser for Gov. James Thompson, R-Ill., Reagan said, “After listening to her and examining her whole record in public life, I am fully satisfied that her appointment is consistent with the principles enunciated in our party platform this past year. “Judge O’Connor, in my view, will bring new luster and new strength to the Supreme Court. I feel certain that her term upon the bench will be one of the proudest legacies of my presidency.” In its 1980 platform, the Republican Party promised to “work for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Judge O’Connor was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, 18 months ago by Gov. Bruce Babbitt. She was elected as a county judge in 1975 and has received one of the highest
Members of the Stanford Law School class of 1952 like to tell the story that one of their professors called them the dumbest law school class he’d ever lectured. , This is the class, they’re happy to point out now, that has,already produced one U.S. Supreme Court justice and is on the verge of providing another. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and President Reagan’s nominee for the court, Sandra Day O’Connor, attended classes together at Stanford Law School and graduated in 1952. Rehnquist was first in the class and O’Connor was third. A classmate, Leon Shields, an attorney practicing in Menlo Park. said the late George Osborne oncE “slammed down a book, said it was the dumbest class he had ever taught at Stanford, and didn’t come back for two weeks.” Osborne, who taught trusts and was an expert on mortgages an
Washington
Sandra D. O’Connor’s opinions during her 18 months as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent.
They do not shed much light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A former Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate, O’Connor is widely regarded as
conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record, however.,has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge.
A review of O’Connor’s 30 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed
none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial constitutional issues the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and
the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Thus it appears to be far too early to determine whether the ideologically divided court will become more conservative or more liberal if and when Judge ‘ O’Connor fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Potter Stewart, who has been viewed as a moderate leaning to the conservative side of the court’s philosophical balance.
Attorney General William French Smith said Tuesday after President Reagan had announced Judge O’Connor as his choice to be the first woman to sit on the
PHOENIX – Sandra O’Connor, selected by President Reagan to become the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had a meteoric rise through the political and judicial ranks of Arizona, where she was raised on a cattle ranch. Colleagues of the 51-year-old Republican, who grew up in the small mining and ranching community of Duncan, say she has impressed them with a sharp mind, efficiency and conservative views. Her voting record in the state Legislature, her opinions from the bench, and comments from those who have worked with and against her, show her as a qualified magistrate who • has developed a conservative approach to most issues. But O’Connor – who graduated third in her 1952 class at Stanford University Law School – has maintained the respect of liberal adversaries. “I think she’s more of a strict constructionist. She believes the government ought to stay out of affairs.” said Frank Lewis, a Phoenix attorney specializing in minority affairs and who has worked with the Arizona Civil Liberties Union. “She’s got a fine legal mind, and she’s had a devoted life of public service in Arizona. As a judge she was not one to have your case before if you were trying to break new ground. But I do not believe she’s another Rehnquist. I don’t believe she’s that far right.” Justice William Rehenquist was in O’Connor’s law school class and ranked first. Alan Matheson, dean of the Arizona State University College of Law, said there “is a tendency to classify” O’Connor “as politically
WASHINGTON – (AP) – Senate leaders said Tuesday they would seek swift confirmation of Sandra D. O’Connor, President Reagan’s choice for the Supreme Court. In a Republican-controlled Senate, some of the strongest praise of O’Connor was from Democrats, who said they were pleased Reagan had chosen a woman with strong legal credentials. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., the assistant Democratic leader, called O’Connor “a brilliant legal scholar with considerable legal experience.” By naming the first woman justice, Reagan has taken a “major step in the battle to eliminate sex discrimination,” Cranston said.
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Howard Baker of Tennessee, who also commended Reagan for naming a woman, said he was “delighted” by the choice and promised to work for her confirmation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which must confirm the nomination, said he was “extremely pleased” with the decision to choose a woman. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, learned of the selection less than an hour before it was announced by Reagan. Nonetheless, he said, “I am glad the president has made his choice, and I will do everything Ican to help the president.” Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., senior Democrat on the committee, said O’Connor “seems to be eminently qualified for the position.”
ONE REPUBLICAN MEMBER of the judiciary panel, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, cautioned against deciding too quickly on O’Connor’s qualifications.
WASHINGTON – In a historic decision, President Reagan Tuesday noml• nated Arizona appeals court Judge San• dra D. O’Connor to be the first woman justice of the Supreme Court – a selection lavishly praised by women’s organizations which frequently have been at odds with the president but condemned by some or his most conservative supporters. In personally making the announcement in the White House press room, Reagan praised the 51-year-old O’Connor as “truly a person ror all seasons, possessing those unique qualities or temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” If confirmed by the Senate, she would succeed newly retired Associate Justice Potter Stewart. Hers is the first Supreme Court nomination since 1975, when President Gerald Ford appointed Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, t and the first woman In the court’s 191 year history. Reagan will not formally send the nomination to the Senate until an FBI background check on O’Connor ls completed. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Strom Thurmond, RS.C., has not set a date for the confirmation hearings. They could come in the four weeks lert before the month-long August recess, or be delayed until September. The president wants the Senate to hold Its hearings and vote on the nomination by the first Monday in October, when the next Supreme Court term begins. O’Connor, a Republican who formerly ‘was majority leader
The first nomination of a women for the Supreme Court won applause from feminist groups in the Valley and around the nation. The nomination was saluted by Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization of Women, who said “we believe it’s a victory for the women’s movement.” “That she would be sympathetic to women’s rights would be very significant” because recent Supreme Court votes on issues in this area have been close, Smeal said. Iris Mitgang, head of the National Women’s Political caucus, declared “women are breaking the barrier of nearly 200 years of exclusion in decision-making in our nation. Justice O’Connor’s nomination will be a major step in moving toward equal justice … ” Cindy Maybeck, an NWPC spokeswoman, said the group was “satisfied” with O’Connor’s positions on “issues that are of concern to us” like “freedom of choice” on abortion and the ERA. Valley spokesmen for NOW praised the nomination as “a great victory.” “On the heels of 180 pro-ERA rallies around the nation this represents a significant step for women,” said the Arizona coordinator for NOW, whose only name is Baker. “We are very pleased to hear of this appointment.” Baker praised O’Connor as a “strong supporter of the ERA” who sponsored pro-ERA bills in 1972 and 1973 and who “spearheaded the effort to make Arizona laws uniform with regard to the sexes.”
Experience on trial bench expected to help nominee
Arizona Appeals Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor would take a qualification to the U.S. Supreme Court shared by only one other current justice – experience as a trial judge. That experience can be of “inestimable value” to the Supreme Court, several . U.S. District Court judges said Tuesday. Judge O’Connor’s tenure as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge “can be a major contribution (to the Supreme Court),” U.S. District Judge Valdemar Cordova said. He served with her in the Maricopa County Superior Court. “I believe it is important to have a good balance on the Supreme Court,” he said. “The addition of Judge O’Connor can provide that balance. She can shed the light of her trial court experience on the proceedings of the Supreme Court.” Cordova said trial judges must make decisions “in the heat of battle .” They do not have “the lu:r.ury of contemplation” afforded appellate judges. “Almost any competent lawyer can take a court transcript and pick it apart after the fact,” he said. “So-called Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy.” Cordova prai sed Mrs. O’Connor ‘s “knowledge of th e law and e:r.perience on the bench” and said it would be of “inestimable value to t he Supreme Court.” Presiding U.S. District Court Judge Carl A. Muecke agreed that trial e:r.perience “can be an important addition to the Supreme Court, especially in correctly ascertaining just how far an appellate court can go and what the limits of an appellate
WASHINGTON In the long run. the most significant fact about Arizona’s Court of Appeals Judge p~ndr~ Day O’Connor may turn out to benot that she is a woman but that she has served as a state legislator and state judge. O’Connor’s long experience at the state level 1s almost as unusual for the modern-day Supreme Court as is her gender. For the last quartercentury, virtually every person appointed to the high court has come through the same channels : a federal judgeship, a federal government job inWashington or a nationally prominent law practice. Not since Justice William J. Brennan Jr . came to Washington from the New Jersey Supreme Court tn 1956 has any court appointee had experience in a state court system. None of the members of the current court has everserved in a state legislature. If O’Connor gives the Justices a ground-level view of how state courts and legislatures operate, her voice could be highly influential. She could, in fact, become a powerful advocate of President Reagan’s oft-stated desire to give greater power to the states. The Supreme Court is asked regularly to judge the validity of laws enacted by state legislatures and rulings by state courts. Generally, the justices fine it much easier to rule unconstitutional the actions of those state bodies than the laws enacted by Congress or the actions of federal agencies. In the court term that has just ended, for example, the Supreme Court moved further in the direction of judicial restraint than at any time in
… reporters Tuesday that Mrs. O’Connor ”falls generally within the President’s overall judicial philosophy .., Smith said at the White House that Mrs. O’Connor was a judicial conservative. “We’re satisfied that she considers it the function of the court to apply and interpret the law and not to make it,” Smith said “She recognizes that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to enact laws.”
According to Smith, the names of more than 20 potential nominees were submitted to Reagan. The attorney general declined to say whether Reagan interviewed other candidates for the vacancy.
At a press conference in Phoenix. Judge O’Connor declined to talk about issues, pending her confirmation hearing. Following is a partial transcript:
Q-When did you find out President Reagan would nominate you?
A-He called me yesterday afternoon, about 4 o’clock our time, and spoke with me at that time.
Q-Had you, considered you were a serious contender for the post?
A-I assumed that l was because I was interviewed late last week in Washington.
Q-What kind of questions did the president ask?
A-I’m not at liberty to disclose the contents of the conversation, and you can check with the White House on that.
Q-How do you view yourself as far as the law’s concerned … your legal approach? A-I simply try to do as good a job as I can with each question as it arises.
Q-What were your thoughts when you first realized that you were being considered. that you might be the first woman on the Supreme
WASHINGTON (AP) – Although she proved herself-a scholarly and lucid writer in her short tenure on Arizona’s appeals court, Judge Sandra O’Connor never really faced the hot legal and constitutional issues of the day. An analysis of nearly all the opinions she’s written in 1½ years on the state bench shows that she dealt mainly with routine matters, such as workmen’s compensation and divorces. That means her supporters and detractors must look elsewhere for the views of President Reagan’s nominee to become the first female member of the Supreme Court – particularly in the areas of abortion and women’s rights. For some, that search already ls over.
Within hours of Tuesday’s announcement, the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group announced they would oppose the nomination of · the Republican jurist. A spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee said the opposition would be based on stances O’Connor took as a member of the Arizona state Senate. But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said O’Connor had told the president “she ls personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorrent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.”
Although she declined to discuss “substantive issues” pending her confirmation, O’Connor told a news conference in Phoenix Tuesday she has special “appreciation for the legislative process.” That would square with Reagan’s insistence that
REACTION IS MIXED
Senate Seems Favorable but Opposition Arises on Abortion Stands
WASHINGTON, July 7 – President Reagan announced today that he would nominate Sandra Day O’Connor, a 51-year-old judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, to the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would become the first woman to serve on the Court.
”She is truly a ‘person for all seasons,’ ” Mr. Reagan said this morning, ”possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual Remarks on Court post, page A12. capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.”
White House and Justice Department officials expressed confidence that Judge O’Connor’s views were compatible with those espoused over the years by Mr. Reagan, who has been highly critical of some past Supreme Court decisions on the rights of defendants, busing, abortion and other matters.
Some Quick Opposition
From the initial reaction in the Senate, it appeared her nomination would be approved. However, her record of favoring the proposed Federal equal rights amendment and having sided once against antiabortion interests while she was a legislator provoked immediate opposition to her confirmation by the National Right to Life Committee, Moral Majority and other groups opposed to abortion.
At a brief news conference in Phoenix, Judge O’Connor declined to explain her views, saying that she intended to leave such matters to her confirmation hearings before
WASHING TON – Her name came up in “chit chat” a month ago but it was only after an int~rview in the Oval Office that President Reagan decided Sandra O’Connor was his choice for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, White House officials said yesterday. The process that led to the historic decision to name the first woman to the high court was affected by many factors, including the assassination attempt against the president. Also figuring in was Reagan’s campaign promise to name a woman to the high tribunal at one of his first opportunities, although aides insist the president was looking for – and fuund – the best qualified person to fill the vacancy. Since Reagan’s announ cement . that be will send O’Connor’s name to the Senate for confirmation, a picture has emerged of how the administration reacted to Justice Potter Stewart’s declaration that he would retire. The president made the final deci- sion Monday afternoon, culminating a process that began late in March, when Stewart informed Attorney General William French Smith that he planned to resign his seat on the bench at the end of the term. Smith told reporters yesterday that he began considering possible replacements the moment Stewart, 66, mentioned his plans. But he said be held off informing the president of the impending court vacancy because “we had a shooting problem” – the March 30 attempt on Reagan’s life.
WASHINGTON, July 7 – Anti-abortion groups today denounced President Reagan’s decision to nominate Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, but initial reaction in the Senate, which will vote on confirmation, was favorable.
”I commend the President for the courage of his decision,” said Howard H. Baker Jr., the Senate Republican majority leader. ”I am delighted with his choice, and I pledge my full support for her confirmation by the full Senate.”
The National Right to Life Committee, an amalgam of anti-abortion lobbying groups in the 50 states, said that it would mobilize its members to ”prevail upon senators to oppose this nomination.” The committee said that Judge O’Connor was ”pro-abortion” as a member of the Arizona State Legislature.
Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, said that the nominee, as a legislator, voted in 1974 not to allow an anti-abortion resolution out of caucus, thus killing it. The resolution asked Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus except when the mother’s life was in danger, and allowed abortions in the case of rape.
Dr. Gerster based her statement of Judge O’Connor’s record on that and other votes, which were characterized as ”pro-abortion,” on newspaper accounts and the recollections of other legislators, she said. Before 1975, the State Legislature kept no records of committee, subcommittee or caucus votes.
”We feel betrayed by the President,” said Paul Brown
The spectators backed away to make a path in the crowded courtroom for a demure lady with a trademark pageboy haircut who had just become an immortal in American history . Ninety minutes earlier, Sandra Day O’Connor , a 51- year-old Arizona Court of Appeals judge, had become the first woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. National and local press representatives squeezed microphones and bulky video equipment into Judge O’Connor ‘s courtroom for a hastily organized press conference on the nomination. Tears welled in the eyes of her oldest son, Scott as her family listened to minutes of applause after Judge O’Connor’s brief press statement. “If confirmed,” she said, “I will do my best to serve the court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the president , to my family and to all the people of this great nation.” The judge, who, before Tuesday, was obscure to most non-Arizonans , called the appointment “momentous.” In a televised announcement, Reagan said, “She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren (justices) who have preceded her.” Urging speedy bipartisan Senate confirmation , Reagan – said naming a Supreme Court justice is “the most awesome appointment ” within his powers. “Those who sit on the Supreme Court interpret the laws of our land and truly do leave their footprints on the sands of time, long after
Sun City area Republicans show popular support for Arizona Judge Sandra O’Connor’s nomination to the U.S . Supreme Court , a random sampling showed. ” I think it ‘s great ,” said Rep . Jim Ratliff, R-District 15. “I don’t think Reagan could have done better.” Other Sun Ci t y area residents echoed Ratliff’s comments, including Herbert Everett , who worked with Mrs . O’Connor in the Arizona Legislature as a Republican representative . “SHE WAS an outstanding legislator who worked very hard, ” the Youngtown resident said . ” I think she’ll make an outstanding justice. ” Sen. Anne Lindeman , R-District 17, said, ” I think the nomination was super-it couldn’t have happended to a nicer person . I think the Supreme Court will be better for it. ” Myrtle Macy, a Sun City resident , who knew Mrs . O’Connor through the Republican party, added , ” I was so thrilled when it was announced-I don’t think they could have found anyone better .” Mrs . Macy said she is pleased a woman was nominated to the court, a first in U.S . history. “ALL THE women have felt that when a person is qualified and has worked so hard that she should have the job .” Emma Ratliff , wife of Rep. Ratliff , said that her familiarity with Mrs. O’Conner spans a decade . “I’m not a women’s libber but she Is one of the best they could appoint,” she said . “That lady never lacks a word on anything-she really does her homework.” “I think she is the best person Reagan could have picked.” A FORMER Senate majority leader, Mrs.
PHOENIX, Ariz. (AP) – Here is the text of most of the news conference held yesterday by Judge Sandra O'Connor,…
Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s place in history is already secure, based on today’s announcement that she will be President Reagan’s nominee as the first woman on the United States Supreme Court.
But if her past is prologue, after her Senate confirmation Judge O’Connor might well go on to leave even larger ”footprints on the sands of time,” as Mr. Reagan, quoting Longfellow, described the mark of United States Justices. Thus far in her 51 years, Judge O’Connor has compiled an impressive list of academic, civic, political and legal achievements.
”She’s finished at the top in a lot of things,” said Mary Ellen Simonson of Phoenix, who was a legislative aide when Mrs. O’Connor was majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, the first woman in the nation to hold such a leadership position.
”She has a reputation for excelling,” Mrs. Simonson continued. ”As a result she’s been one of the state’s leading role models for women. Now she’s a national role model.”
Judge O’Connor, who currently sits on the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, refused this afternoon to discuss ”substantive issues” when she met with reporters in Phoenix. And, because of her short, 18-month tenure on the appeals court and its somewhat limited docket, she has faced few of the nettlesome issues routinely taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Nevertheless, her past and her acquaintances provide some insights into her mind and personality.
She is said, by friend and foe alike
By LARRY NATHANSON ”IT’S HARD to play the male chauvinist with Judge O’Connor,” said her former boss. “Her strong talent is too well respected,” said Chief Justice Laurance T. Wren of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Sandra O’Connor goes from a court where she is the only woman among eight men to the U.S. Supreme Court where she will be the only woman among eight men; the first woman to break into the old boys’ club in almost 200 years of the court’s history. And when Sandra O’Connor speaks, her former boss suggests the Supreme Court justices behave like actors in an E.F. Hutton commercial. “They should listen because Judge O’Connor has something to say,” says Justice Wren. “She has a keen Intelligence, extensive knowledge of the law, Is outspoken on the issues and when she speaks she’s fully prepared and fully informed.” Yesterday, President Reagan named Mrs. O’Connor, 51, to fill the seat of retiring Justice Potter Stewart. Within minutes of the announcement her colleagues on Arizona’s highest court showered her with the ungrudging compliments of big brothers but with none of the condescension. “She has a razor sharp mind which, combined with a steady temperament, , makes her well-suited for the tough questions that would be presented to a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, said Appeals Court Judge Donald Froeb. “A hard-working bright lady. An excellent Judge, an asset,” said Judge Eino Jacobson. “We’re sorry to lose her, but there is such a feeling of excitement and elation here that
President Reagan’s choice of Sandra D. O’Connor as a Supreme Court nominee was surrounded by extraordina ry secrecy, including finding a location to mtcrview candidates that was safe from discovery by reporters. In deference to Justice Potter Stewart’s desire to keep his resignation private until mid-June, top Justice Department and White House officials were told to begin a search for nominees on a contingency basis, without learning that a vacancy was imminent. Justice Department officials who asked not to be named said Tuesday that Stewart met privately with Attor• ney General William French Smith in late March, less than a week before President Reagan was shot March 30. Stewart told Smith he was retiring but did not want to make it public then. As the selection process intensified, in deference to Stewart and later to preserve the announcement for Reagan to make, Smith ordered one of his aides to arrange for a meeting place where top Justice Department officials could interview candidates without being observed by reporters. The aide was not told who was being interviewed. The same secret location was used on the afternoon of June 30 for an interview with O’Connor by Smith, White House chief of staff Jim Baker, his deputy Michael Deaver, presidential counsellor Edwin Meese, and White House counsel Fred Fielding. None of those in the June 30 meeting would say it it was held at a house, government office or hotel room. In an interview, Fielding declined to disclose the location
WASHINGTON – President Reagan nominated Judge Sandra D. O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday to become the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Upon confirmation by the Senate – considered certain – the 51- year-old jurist would succeed Justice Potter Stewart. Mr. Reagan told a nationwide television audience that naming a Supreme Court justice is the most awesome appointment a president can make because the high court leaves “footprints on the sands of time.” The president recalled that during his campaign he made a commitment to appoint the most qualified woman he could find. “That is not to say I would appoint a woman merely to do so,” he added. “That would not be fair to women, nor to future generations of all Americans.” He said Judge O’Connor possesses the qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good that have characterized the 101 “brethren” who have served at the Supreme Court . Active in Republican politics in Arizona, she was co-chairman of Richard M. Nixon’s state campaign committee in 1968. She was majority leader in Arizona’s state senate in 1973 and is the only woman ever to hold that job. Her Legislative Record There was quick opposition to her nomination from the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U .S. anti-abortion group. Mr . Reagan, however, said he is completely satisfied with her record on such issues. Although she is considered a conservative, her legislative record shows a
Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination to be the first sister among the brethren of the U.S. Supreme Court is certainly the biggest “first” in the 51-year-0ld jurist’s life. But the Arizona Court of Appeals judge is no novice when it comes to breaking new ground. From becoming the first female director in the 92-year history of the board of the First National Bank of Arizona in 1971 (now First Interstate Bank), to being picked in 1973 to lead the Senate majority in the Legislature, O’Connor has compiled ~’I impressive list of accomplishments. A… Arizona native, Sandra Day was born March 26, 1930, and grew up on her parents’ Lazy-B Ranch in Greenlee County along the New Mexico border. At age 16, she headed for Stanford University, where she received her undergraduate degree in economics and then entered the university’s law college, graduating third in the 1952 graduating class. Top honors that year were taken by William Rehnquist, who went on to practice law in Phoenix and, in 1972, become a Supreme Court justice. O’Connor was a member of the board of editors of the Stanford Law Review and graduated with the Order of the Coif. Stanford Law School Dean Charles Meyers said yesterday that the appointment of O’Connor is “marvelous for the country, for Stanford, and for the law school.” Meyers said O’Connor is “a woman of great ability; tremendous balance and good political understanding.” Emeritus Professor John Hurlbut of the law school said he remembered O’Connor well from his classes
The first woman to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court declared herself ”extremely honored and happy” today but told reporters at a hastily called 15-minute news conference, ”I can’t address myself to substantive questions pending confirmation.”
”If confirmed, I will do my best to serve the Court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the President, to my family and to all the people of this great nation,” Judge Sandra Day O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals said in a brief statement.
Judge O’Connor, who has a reputation for being calm in the most difficult courtroom situation, appeared not only very happy but also a little nervous as she spoke to reporters in the courtroom.
She said the news of her appointment made today ”a momentous day in my life and the life of my family.” She was flanked by her husband, John Jay O’Connor 3d, a Phoenix lawyer; her three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay, and other members of the court.
Although Judge O’Connor spoke with President Reagan for about 15 minutes last week, the news of her appointment came as something of a surprise to her. Background Similar to Rehnquist’s
As late as Saturday, she told a group of friends that she thought the chance of her appointment was remote, partly because of the similarity between her background and that of Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, another Arizonan. Judge O’Connor was graduated third in the Stanford University Law School class in which Justice William Rehnquist
From all accounts, President Reagan picked a winner and made history as well by selecting. Sandra O’Connor to fill the vacancy on the· Supreme Court.
The highest court in the land has been an, all-male bastion for much too long, and we’re! happy to see Reagan breach the wall. It’s a signal, honor for the Arizona jurist and a long-overdue· recognition of the fact that in law, as in other ‘fields, women have come into their own.
But Judge O’Connor promises to bring to the court more than a history-making label. She was, a top student at Stanford Law School, a respected lawyer in Arizona and the Republican majority leader of the State Senate before being named to an appellate court-by a Democratic governor.
People familiar with Judge O’Connor’s work on the bench give her high marks on all counts-grasp of the law, judicial temperament and clear, cogently written opinions.
The chorus of approval is not unanimous. The Right to Life Committee and the Moral Majority already have protested what they regard as Judge O’Connor’s “pro-abortion” leanings. What that means, we suspect, is that as a private citizen the judge doesn’t share their particular views on abortion.
But her entire record argues that she would not on the bench let her personal views intrude on her judicial actions. Apparently, she does not subscribe to the old Earl Warren philosophy of the Supreme Court’s right to invade every nook and cranny of American life.
In this sense, Mrs. O’Connor is judicially nonpartisan
The Uniied States Supreme Court, after 191 years and 101 male justices, apparently will join the mainstream of U;S. life with the appointment of Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, the high court’s first woman justice. The breaching of the last male bastion in the federal government is as splendid as it is overdue. What’s really surprising is that the nation’s first woman justice has the backing of Ronald Reagan, a president whose party last year reversed 40 years of backing for an equal rights amendment. Reagan has been under fire recently for what even supporters admit is a dismal record of appointments: Only 42 women . among the 390 appointees that so far have required Senate confirmation. But, Reagan has a promising prospect. A graduate (along with Justice Rehnquist) of Stanford University Law School, O’Connor is thought a good lawyer, a scholarly writer and a superior jurisL She has an interest in the outdoors and a, background in civic and charitable causes. In his announcement of Judge O’Connor’s nomiria- . tion, President Reagan called her “a person for all seasons.” He noted that she possesses “those unique qualities of temperament, fairness and intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘Brethren’ who have preceded her.” Reagan chose O’Connor despite pressures from groups who fear her approach to women’s rights’ issues. On the other hand, women’s groups such as the National Women’s Political Caucus cheered
ombined News Services Washington-President Reagan, a break with 191 years of tradition, yesterday ~ominated Judge Sandra Day O’Connor of the Arizona Court of Appeals to be the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. The nomination, in fulfillment of a campaign promise to name a woman to one of the first vacancies on the nation’s highest court, was hailed by women’s groups. But it also drew immediate fire from some of the President’s conservative allies, including the politically potent Moral Majority, which says O’Connor has taken stands favoring abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. Calling the 51-year-old O’Connor “a person for all seasons,” Reagan brushed aside the criticisms of antiabortion groups, some of which plan a campaign against her confirma-. ,tion. “I am completely satisfied with her,” a smiling Reagan said as he announced her appointment in the White House press briefing room. Reagan urged the Senate to give “swift bipartisan confirmation” to her “so that, as soon as possible, she may take her seat on the court and her place in history.” Early reaction from the Senate indicated that her confirmation would be easy. Attorney General William French Smith said he hoped the FBI checks on O’Connor could be completed so that the actual nomina: tion could be sent to the Senate in less than four weeks. Referring to his campaign pledge to make one of his first Supreme Court appointments “the most qualified woman I could possibly find,” the” President said he was
WASHINGTON – President Reagan Tuesday nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, an Arizona appeals court judge, to be the first woman to wear the robes of a U.S. Supreme Court justice. As the president put it in an announcement in the White House press room: “She is truly a ‘person for all seasons,’ possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” O’CONNOR, WHO will succeed retiring Justice Potter Stewart if she is confirmed by the Senate, responded in Phoenix: “I will do my best to serve the court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the president, to my family and to all the people…”
Reagan said the appointment kept a campaign promise he made last Oct. 14. He had pledged then that “one of for the U.S. Supreme Court, Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find.” The president said Tuesday that he had not meant that “I would appoint a woman merely to do so. That would not be fair to women, nor to future, generations of all Americans whose lives are so deeply affected by the decisions of the court. “Rather, I pledged to appoint a woman who meets the very high standards demand of all court appointees.” SMILING HAPPILY at her Phoenix press conference, O’Connor avoided giving her views on current legal and political issues such as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. She explained that
WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor – the “person for all seasons” chosen to become the first woman to serve on the 191 year-old U.S. Supreme Court – is a solid Republican who knows which way the political winds blow. O’Connor, 51, an Arizona native reared on a cattle ranch, already faces opposition from anti-abortion groups for what they view as a pro-abortion position when she served in the Arizona Senate. And her flirtation with the Equal Rights Amendment – she later withdrew her support for the ERA – will also come in for criticism from some conserwtive groups. O’Connor, now a state appeals court judge, would bring legisla- tive and judicial credentials to the high court bench. Feminists are heartened by the fact that in her final term in the state Senate she was elected majority leader – the first woman in the nation to hold such a leadership post. THE MOTHER of three sons, O’Connor is married to a Phoenix lawyer, John O’Connor. She graduated third in her class from Stanford University Law School in 1952. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, an Arizona native, was first in that class. She served In the state Senate from 1969, when she was appointed to fill a vacancy, to 1975, winning election to two full terms representing a wealthy Phoenix suburb. In 1972, soon after Congress passed the ERA, O’Connor spoke on the state Senate floor, urging ratification. But when she learned that Arizona’s two U.S. senators opposed the measure, her enthusiasm faded and the Issue died
