Speech

Speech on jury service reform to the American Bar Association

Speech / By

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, President Gray. I appreciate that so much. And thanks for letting me be part of the effort today. I think my interest in this came about because of my years as a trial court judge and dealing with jurors in a great mini criminal as well as civil cases. And the jury system in this country is one of the most enduring aspects of our legal system as a whole. And the only time that most Americans other than lawyers and letting them see the inside of an actual courtroom is when they’re called to serve as jurors and juries have a proud history in this country as well as in England, where the jury as we know, developed today, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Continue to use juries to hear evidence and determine facts. In a great many criminal cases. All only the United States and New Zealand continue to require use of juries in most civil cases. So it’s a shrinking universe out there. The Russian Federation is experimenting with the use of juries in serious criminal cases. And that seems to be expanding now to all parts of the Russian Federation. I think juries usually their do their jobs very well and occasionally show extraordinary courage in the face of hostile judges, perhaps, and try to deliver the verdict that justice demands, even if it might not be the one that the judge might want. I presided over many a trial and in all but two or three cases, I felt that the jury reached an entirely Appropriate verdict. And

Interview, Magazine article

Interview with Scholastic News

Interview, Magazine article / By

Sandra Day O’Connor greets Kid Reporter Danny Murphy in the Lawyers’ Lounge in the Supreme Court Building. (Photo: Ron Sachs/Consolidated News Photos)

September 17 is Constitution Day. On Constitution Day, we honor and celebrate the cornerstone of our government. The Constitution is the most important document in the United States. It’s the basis of our government and provides us with our rights. On this Constitution Day, Scholastic News talks with constitutional expert and the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. As a Supreme Court Justice from 1981 through 2006, O’Connor decided with laws or decisions made by other courts were constitutional. Sometimes, laws are passed or decisions are made that some people think violate the Constitution. When that happens, cases are brought before the nine members of the Supreme Court. This process is called “checks and balances,” and is an important part of the Constitution. Once you’ve read the interview with Sandra Day O’Connor, read more about the Constitution and the views of other constitutional experts and play the Constitution Game in the Constitution Day Special Report!

Scholastic News: What was your favorite subject in school?

Sandra Day O’Connor: That’s so hard to say. It’s been such a long time since I was in school. I think probably history. What’s your favorite subject?

SN: History also.

O’Connor: How about that! Except I went to school in El Paso, Texas, and every single year I was there from kindergarten

Interview

Interview at Cornell Law School

Interview / By

Unknown Speaker Justice O’Connor here, here Unknown Speaker I’ve made these mistakes before Unknown Speaker we’re ready Stewart Schwab Good afternoon, everyone. I’m absolutely I’m Stewart Schwab, the Allan R. Tessler Dean of the Cornell Law School. And I’m just so pleased to introduce this session today. Both Biddy Martin and Sandra Day O’Connor our first

Biddy Martin, To my far left, has been provost at Cornell University since July 1 2000. The Provost being the university’s chief educational officer, and Chief Operating Officer. And Provost Martin is the first woman to hold this position at Cornell University. She’s been on the Cornell University faculty, however, since 1984, in the department of German studies, having received her PhD in German literature from the University of Wisconsin. Now on my near left, is Justice Sandra Day O’Connor She was the 100 and second person appointed to the United States Supreme Court. And as we all know, that was a first, the first woman appointed to the court. Prior to that she was a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate, among many other positions. Justice O’Connor received her undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University. And I’m very grateful and delighted that she was able to visit Cornell this week as our distinguished jurist in residence. Now, on a personal note, these two women have been among my very few bosses in my entire professional life. I think as I recall,

Law review article, Speech

The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the American Judicial Tradition

Law review article, Speech / By

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Dean told me, as is often the case in church, there are still some seats up in front. So if somebody standing under would rather be seated, come on up and I think you might find some seats.

You’ve doubtlessly heard the praise that Charles Dickens lavished upon Cincinnati, one of the few places that enticed him during his travels through 19th century America. The judges here he said were gentlemen of high character and attainments. The society with which I mingled was intelligent, courteous and agreeable. The inhabitants of Cincinnati are proud of their city as one of the most interesting in America and with good reason. I suppose William Howard Taft was perhaps the most illustrious product of that social and judicial tradition. Although a special place of prominence must also be accorded another of Cincinnati’s leaders. My immediate predecessor on the Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart, perhaps no Justice of the Supreme Court, past or present, can rival Chief Justice Taft’s remarkable career prior to appointment to the court, Solicitor General at age 30, civil governor of the Philippine Islands, Federal Circuit Court Judge, Secretary of War, President of the United States by the way, along the way, he also distinguished himself as dean and Professor of property at the law department of the University of Cincinnati. Despite these varied honors, Taft’s greatest commitment lay with the law and the judicial tradition.

Speech

President Reagan’s Remarks Announcing the Intention To Nominate Sandra Day O’Connor To Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Speech / By

The President. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a statement to make. And then following that statement, if there are any questions you might have, I shall refer you to the Attorney General.

As President of the United States, I have the honor and the privilege to pick thousands of appointees for positions in Federal Government. Each is important and deserves a great deal of care for each individual called upon make his or her contribution, often at personal sacrifice, to shaping the policy of the Nation. Thus each has an obligation to you, in varying degrees, has an impact on your life.

In addition, as President, I have the privilege to make a certain number of nominations which have a more lasting influence on our lives, for they are the lifetime appointments of those men and women called upon to serve in the judiciary in our Federal district courts and courts of appeals. These individuals dispense justice and provide for us these most cherished guarantees of protections of our criminal and civil laws. But, without doubt, the most awesome appointment is a guarantee to us of so many things, because it is a President — as a President, I can make an appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

Those who sit in the Supreme Court interpret the laws of our land and truly do leave their footprints on the sands of time. Long after the policies of Presidents and Senators and Congressmen of any given era may have passed from public memory, they’ll be remembered.

NBC

How Sandra Day O’Connor’s 5-year career break changed the game for women in the workplace

NBC / By

Carol Fishman Cohen of iRelaunch pays tribute to the retired Supreme Court Justice, 60 years after the start of her career break and subsequent rise to the top of her field.

Tributes to a luminary such as Sandra Day O’Connor, now 90 years old and retired from public life since 2018, are likely to focus on her stature in the legal world and her path-breaking appointment as the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Less well known, but equally remarkable, is the unusual course she followed as she built her stellar career.

Justice O’Connor took a five-year career break in the early 1960s —when such a move was considered career-ending, because her babysitter quit and she couldn’t find a replacement. Yet, despite the long odds against her, she relaunched her full-time legal career and reached the pinnacle of her field. Fifteen years ago, I had the opportunity to hear directly from Justice O’Connor about how she navigated those milestone moments.

My co-author Vivian Steir Rabin and I were writing our book “Back on the Career Track”(Hachette 2007), the manual-to-be for career reentry after a multi-year career break. It was a novel idea at the time, often met with skepticism, and we were on a mission to find high-profile “relaunchers” whose experiences made them early role models for the concept. We were thrilled to meet and interview Justice O’Connor in chambers in March of 2005 as part of this effort.

Much of Justice O’Connor’s story is legendary: she grew up on an Arizona cattle ranch

Law review article

Mugwump, Mediator, Machiavellian, or Majority? The Role of Justice O’Connor in the Affirmative Action Cases

Law review article / By

MUGWUMP, MEDIATOR, MACHIAVELLIAN, OR MAJORITY?
THE ROLE OF JUSTICE O’CONNOR IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES
by
THOMAS R. HAGGARD

I am sure that these questions [involving affirmative action]… are going to come back before the Court in a variety of forms. I do believe that litigation in the area of affirmative action is far from resolved, as I see it, and that we will continue to have cases in this area.

Sandra Day O’Connor Nomination Hearings September 9, 1981

It was a prophetic statement from the nominee. Since Justice O’Connor’s appointment in 1981, affirmative action has been back before the Court on ten occasions.2 The cases have generated forty separate opinions and fill over 450 pages of the reporters. Yet, the matter is far from resolved, from either a statutory or a

David W. Robinson, Chair, Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law. B.A., University of Texas, 1964; LLB., University of Texas School of Law, 1967.

1 Nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States

Senate, 97th Congress, 1st Sess. 84 (1981), reprinted in THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL NOMINATIONS OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BY THE SENATE Judiciary Committee, 1916-1981: 1983 Supplement 196 (compiled by R. Mersky & J. Jacobstein 1983) [hereinafter Hearings].

The prior affirmative action cases that she had reference to were: DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1977); United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979); and Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). In addition, the philosophical and constitutional progenitors of affirmative action had been established in the school desegregation cases, Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430 (1968), and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971). See generally, L. GRAGLIA, DISASTER BY DECREE: THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON RAcE AND THE SCHOOLS (1976).

2 Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 110 S.Ct. 2997 (1990); Martin v. Wilks, 109 S. Ct. 2180 (1989); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989); Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara County, Cal., 480 U.S. 616 (1987); United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987); Local 93, Int’! Ass’n of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986); Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’! Ass’n v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986); Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (1986); Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 56i (i984); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 7i8 (i982) (not generaiiy regarded as an “affirmative action” case).

Law review article

Toward a Colorblind Constitution: Justice O’Connor’s Narrowing of Affirmative Action

Law review article / By

TOWARD A COLORBLIND CONSTITUTION:

JUSTICE O’CONNOR’S NARROWING OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

INTRODUCTION

We are a Nation not of black and white alone, but one teeming with divergent communities knitted together by various traditions and carried forth, above all, by individuals. Upon that basis, we are governed by one Constitution, pro viding a single guarantee of equal protection, one that extends equally to all citizens.1

With this statement, Justice O’Connor firmly established her adherence to the concept of a colorblind Constitution. Under this interpretation, the Consti tution attaches to individuals and not to groups, thus preserving “the equal worth, dignity, and respect of every individual regardless of race.” 2 This reading of the Constitution plays a prominent role in Justice O’Connor’s af firmative action jurisprudence.

Consistent with this interpretation of the Constitution, Justice O’Connor reviews constitutional challenges to affirmative action plans with strict scru tiny. Employing this standard of review, she has narrowed the permissible uses of affirmative action, thus reducing the instances of racial discrimination that unduly burden nonminorities and exacerbate racial hostilities. Her fair and open-minded approach has allowed employers, schools, and other entities to implement affirmative action plans to correct past discrimination while it has eliminated improper racial balancing not seeking to amend past injustices. Throughout her tenure, Justice O’Connor has

Law review article

Of Hobgoblins and Justice O’Connor’s Jurisprudence of Equality

Law review article / By

Of Hobgoblins and Justice O’Connor’s Jurisprudence of Equalityt

Vikram David Amar•

INTRODUCTION

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is, I’m sure, tired of being identified as the jurist who holds the fate of constitutional law in her hands. At a recent judicial conference, she responded to a seemingly innocuous observation by United States District Court Judge Terry Hatter that she is the pivotal high court vote in so many disputed areas by chiding him with the line: “You’ve been reading too many newspapers. I get a little impatient with that description.”‘

But the newspapers and Judge Hatter are right: Justice O’Connor’s vote and voice are, at this point in time, constitutionally crucial. And I’m not sure that recognition of this reality is really what bothers her. Instead, I think what must get tiresome for her is not the observation that her stance determines outcomes, but the separate (though often accompanying) comment that her voice is idiosyncratic, ad hoc and not terribly consiste nt.2 Being reminded you have the power is one thing; being accused of exercising the power in an erratic and unprincipled way is quite another.

In this short essay, I’d like to unpack a few of the supposed idiosyncracies and inconsistencies in Justice O’Connor’s jurisprudence of equality. Equal protection law is, of course, a huge topic, so I am going to narrow my focus to the most contentious area of equal protection, and the one where Justice O’Connor has made her most visible mark on legal doctrine-t

Interview, TV appearance

Interview on “The Daily Show” discussing her book, “Out of Order”

Interview, TV appearance / By

Jon Stewart
Nice to see you again. The book is called–

Sandra Day O’Connor
*Out of Order*.

Jon Stewart
*Out of Order*. What was your purpose in in this book and putting this particular book together?

Sandra Day O’Connor
Oh, just telling some of the stories about how the Court works and giving people a glimpse into some of the things.

Jon Stewart
It’s hard to imagine the pressure that a justice might feel when you’re dealing with, as we talked about earlier, some of the biggest issues of our day—

Sandra Day O’Connor
Yes.

Jon Stewart
Of racism and discrimination and—

Sandra Day O’Connor
Yes.

Jon Stewart
The franchise—

Sandra Day O’Connor
Right.

Jon Stewart
Does that weight, do you feel that when you’re deciding those cases?

Sandra Day O’Connor
You certainly do, because you really want to make the correct decision and bring some order out of our various statutes and constitutional provisions and the precedents of the Court itself. It’s hard sometimes.

Jon Stewart
You wrote, *Brown v. Board of Education* may be the most important decision.

Sandra Day O’Connor
It was very important to us as a nation.

Jon Stewart
When they made that decision, was it a difficult one, did people feel that they had overreached at that time?

Sandra Day O’Connor
You know, I don’t know the feeling of the justices who joined it. But that was a major decision. And many of them are. They affect us for years to come. And you really want to get it properly decided.