FIRST IMPRESSIONS: A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

Viet D. Dinh*

Justice O’Connor cares about federalism, and here is how I know. I first met her after two nights without sleep. In typical law student fashion, I had prepared for the clerkship interview by read ing everything possible about the Justice – law review articles, ma jor opinions, transcripts of confirmation hearings, even a biography written for sixth graders. I prepared a list of questions and answers, talked to professors, and practiced with friends.

All for naught. After pleasantries about writing and the Court, my discussion with the Justice took a curious turn. Referring to my first summer in college, Justice O’Connor said, “I see you were an intern for the City of Yorba Linda.” I muttered a flustered re sponse, and we spent a good deal of time talking about my experi ence working for city governments and my college thesis on local politics.

During our conversation (and in her various public com ments), Justice O’Connor drew upon her own career in state gov ernment. Before her appointment to the Court,Justice O’Connor was a veteran of Arizona government, both in the judiciary and the legislature, where she served as majority leader. This experience gave life to her respect for the federal system, a system which Si mon Bolivar once criticized as “over perfect” and which “demands political virtues and talents far superior to our own.”1 Recent deci sions from the Court concerning feder alism2 and proposals

AN “IMPRESSIVE SHOW’: A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE O’CONNOR*

Some time ago, when I happened to answer the telephone in Chambers, a caller said that she was submitting a clerkship application, but had a question: “Does the Judge spell her first name S-ON-D-R-A or S-A-N-D-R-A?” I responded that there was no clerkship vacancy. While I thought in regret a moment later that the confusion was understandable-“Day” and “Kaye,” Washington and Albany (both capitals)-in the end, I’m certain it was simply a matter of gender. And in the end it’s definitely a privilege to share a gender with Justice Sandra (that’s “a” not “o”) Day (not “Kaye”) O’Connor. The confusion is enormously flattering. In fact, Justice O’Connor herself made light of the phenomenon when she and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended a 1993 function wearing T-shirts with “The Supremes” on the front and “I’m Sandra, not Ruth” (and vice versa) on the back. It’s hard to believe that Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg are ever mistaken for one another-again, the physical resemblance between the two is hardly striking.1 But there is no question about it. In a day when women are still a rarity in high office, gender remains a defining quality, even within the judicial system. In the course of her distinguished career, Justice O’Connor has encountered, and recounted, instances of gender discrimination. They began with her very entry into the legal profession when, upon graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952,

A TRIBUTE

In the spring of 1989, 1 turned 33 and planned to marry in late summer. That same spring, Sandra Day O’Connor turned 59. Soon to be a first-time grandmother, she was still recovering from breast cancer therapies of the previous fall and winter. At various moments during those springtime months, both of us must have had thoughts about parenting, about children, about our futures and about the fragility of our lives. I recall having had such thoughts the day the Justice took her clerks for a stroll around the Tidal Basin to admire the cherry blossoms in all their fleeting beauty. Maybe similar thoughts were on her mind. We were probably also thinking about parents, children and fragility in a more immediate way that afternoon. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services1 was set for oral argument on April 26. The Justice’s vote was almost certainly going to be the crucial fifth. On the Saturday morning before oral argument, we clerks would gather with the Justice to preview the arguments. Traditionally, these Saturday meetings took place in Chambers. That October Term we often met at the Justice’s home in deference to her health. Fragility was in the air. In fact, with respect to Webster, it pervaded the Court and especially her Chambers. Justices, clerks and Court watchers all recognized that Webster offered the Court an opportunity to revisit Roe. Continued protection of the right at the core of Roe-“the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability

A TRIBUTE TO

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

In July, 1981, President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The nomination was greeted with enthusiasm by the press and the gen eral public. The applause generated was focused initially on the fact that she would be the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Outside of Arizona, her qualifications were not well-known and, even as a nominee, she was stereotyped as a Reagan conserva tive-whatever that might have meant. Her confirmation hearings, however, demonstrated not only that she was articulate and well prepared, but that this nominee had the intellectual strength and ability to make a substantial contribution to the Court. As Dean Alan A. Matheson of the Arizona State University School of Law stated at the time, “After the clamor concerning the first female appointee has receded, Justice Sandra [Day] O’Connor will be judged solely on the basis of her ability and her contribution to the development of the law. The judgment will be a positive one.”1

Justice O’Connor is now in her fifteenth term of service on the Court. The judgment is indeed a positive one.

I am not the appropriate person to comment on Justice O’Connor’s significant contributions to the work of the Court in the criminal justice and civil rights areas, or with respect to redis tricting, affirmative action, abortion, the federal-state relationship, the Establishment Clause, etc. And very few would be interested

A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

I am honored to deliver this tribute to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I have observed her judicial career with great interest and great admiration. Justice O’Connor will, of course, go down in history as the first woman on the Supreme Court. That, in itself, is a remarkable achievement. But it is one thing to be the first to get somewhere, and quite another to lead and excel when one gets there. Justice O’Connor is not one to rest on her laurels-indeed, it is reputed that resting is one of the few activities at which she does not excel. For this reason, it seems to me appropriate that I focus my remarks today on her judicial style and achievements. Cases get to the Supreme Court because they are difficult and important. Justice O’Connor’s well-known reluctance to rely on simple per se rules recognizes that reality. Justice O’Connor epitomizes the judicial virtues needed to decide these difficult, important cases: she is meticulously prepared; attentive to the subtle details, complexities, and human interests on both sides of the cases; and ready to exercise legal, not political, judgment. Justice O’Connor is first and foremost a “lawyer’s judge.” Her refusal to embrace ideological dogmas has consistently frustrated those who adhere to what we might call the “traffic direction” school of law: left or right? Real lawyers know that law is not so one dimensional, and they are reminded of that fact frequently by justice O’Connor’s nuanced and

A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

I am pleased and honored to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend of forty-five years, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I will not try to spell out the positive effect that Sandra has had on the evolution of our nation’s law in her fifteen years on the Court; suffice it to say, she has developed a brilliant and well respected body of jurisprudence. But, as I would have expected, to look only at Sandra’s jurisprudence is to seriously understate the contribution she has made as a Supreme Court Justice. Sandra has a warm, giving nature and a seemingly inexhaustible well-spring of energy that will not allow her to believe that her work consists solely of hearing oral argument and drafting opinions, although these duties in themselves amount to more than a full-time job. As long as I have known her, Sandra has always gone beyond the stated duties of whatever position she has held, and her appointment to the Supreme Court has, if anything, inspired her to go even further beyond what is required. With her years of experience in the American legal profession and her unique perspective as a Supreme Court Justice, Sandra is an ideal candidate to advise other nations about the operation of our nation’s legal system. She has embraced her candidacy with characteristic vigor. Since her appointment to the Court, Sandra has met with foreign judges and dignitaries from countries on six of the world’s seven continents. She has also participated

A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

It is a great privilege, and a personal pleasure, to introduce Justice O’Connor, who honors us with her presence. Her remarkable, almost storied background is well known. Pathbreaker, one who overcame the extraordinary, almost unthinkable disabilities as a young lawyer whose professional opportunities were arbitrarily and invidiously limited. Yet she succeeded admirably, taking on task after task and discharging her varying and growing duties in a way that won Phi Beta Kappa, Law Review type honors that characterized her distinguished academic career at Leland Stanford’s University, the N.Y.U., if you will, of the West. That she is a person of great accomplishment and ability is universally understood. What is less known here in the East about her remarkable background is that, long before the Year of the Woman, then duly elected Senator O’Connor, upon entering the Arizona State Senate, rose with meteoric speed to become Senate Majority Leader. This in a, shall we say, male-dominated institution. Notwithstanding her success in politics, she opted instead for the life of the law and the bench. Her shill and wisdom as a trial judge were renowned, and she quickly rose to the intermediate appellate bench in her native State. (Although for purposes of precision I must say, as a native Texan, that we in the Lone Star State proudly, parochially claim Justice O’Connor as our own since she had the good fortune to be born in El Paso.) When back

A TRIBUTE TO

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

I am honored to be a part of this celebration of my friend and colleague Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. It is hard to believe that almost fifteen years have gone by since she was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Fifteen years on the Supreme Court is quite a milestone, even for a person who has made a career out of setting milestones.

On July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced Judge O’Connor’s appointment and stated that she “is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fair ness, intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.”1 In deed she had unique qualities and a unique perspective.

Sandra Day O’Connor was raised on a rural cattle ranch in Ari zona. Several years after graduating as one of the few women in her class at Stanford University Law School, she served as an assistant attorney general of Arizona. In 1969, she began her tenure as a legislator in the Arizona State Senate. After rising to the post of majority leader in the Arizona State Senate, she became a superior court judge and then an appeals court judge.

Justice O’Connor took those experiences with her to the Supreme Court. It is interesting to note that in addition to being the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice O’Connor was the first state court jurist to join the Court since I took the oath