Law review article, Speech

The Quality of Justice

Law review article, Speech / By

The Quality of Justice

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor* Associate Justice

Supreme Court of the United States

… We all can be proud that we are “members” •of the Ninth Circuit, whether as circuit justice, judge, magistrate, employee, or practitioner. The Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force was the first federal task force formed to study the effects of gender in the judicial system, and it has produced a comprehensive, well-supported report. A couple of years ago, I gave a speech in which I discussed the exist ence of a glass ceiling for women. The next day, headlines and news paper articles trumpeted my statements as if I had made a surprising new discovery. But it is now 1992, and I don’t think most of us were surprised to learn that the Task Force found the existence of gender bias in a federal circuit. After all, over 20 state. task forces already have found gender bias in their judicial systems.

Gender bias can affect men and women, judges, coµrt personnel, lawyers, litigants, and witnesses. You may have read about its recent effect on a female lawyer in New York when she tried to make an objection at a deposition. Her male opponent asked someone to “tell that little mouse over th.ere to pipe down” and refused to.address her. (The “mouse,” by the way, fought back. Styling herself the “little mouse that roared,” she filed a motion under a New York state law prohibiting such conduct, and her opponent was fined $500.)

Without denigrating the effects on individuals

Law review article, Speech

Professionalism

Law review article, Speech / By

It is a great pleasure to be here at Washington University to dedicate this magnificent new home for the law school. Winston Churchill once said that “[w]e shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”1 Here you

have shaped a beautiful site, commensurate with Washington University’s reputation and equipped to meet the demands of contemporary legal education. I expect that this stunning facility will in turn inspire innovative scholarship, and nurture young lawyers with the finest legal skills and the highest professional standards.

As lovely as it is, what I would like to talk to you about today is not your new building. I would like to discuss my granddaughter. You see, I recently returned from an extended period of grandmother-granddaughter bonding sort of a cross-generational in-the-family version of Thelma and Louise and she is often on my mind. At one point during the visit, my granddaughter came to me, disappointed about having to perform some task or another. It was pointless, she said. Well, she didn’t actually say ”pointless.” Pointless, in the vocabulary of a young child, is replaced by two words: ”But why?” Her meaning was clear nonetheless. Her second objection was that it was “no fun.”

“Pointless and no fun,” one of my friends quipped. ”If those were

legitimate objections, we wouldn’t have anyone practicing law.” The comment seemed funny at that moment, but in retrospect it seems disconcerting. Is that what the practice of law has become-pointless

Law review article, Speech

The History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement

Law review article, Speech / By

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. And that was the best introduction I’ve ever had. From the best sister I’ve ever had. I can’t tell you how pleased I am to be here with you today to commemorate the ratification of the 19th amendment. We’re starting this talk a little early. Maybe before you’re finished with launch, and we’re doing that because I have so much to tell you today. I normally try to be very brief in my speeches. I’m not going to be brief today. Because this is a story that needs telling and you need to know what if you don’t Ready.

I find it difficult to imagine that only 75 years ago, a woman’s right to vote was not protected by our Constitution. It’s hard to remember that we have taken for granted all our lives, something that some of our grandmothers never enjoy. But we’re here today to remember such things, to celebrate the amendments that extended to women, one of the fundamental rights of citizen participation, and to reflect on how far we’ve come. In order to appreciate the tremendous progress made by American women in the last century. It’s important to think about the point from which we started the history of the suffrage movement. He has a colorful and entertaining one and a tale from which we can draw many lessons. begins in the late 18th century, as this country’s political, governmental and social frameworks were only beginning to take shape. When the wife of future president john adams implored her husband in 1776 to remember the ladies and drafting

Interview

Interview with former Vice President Dan Quayle

Interview / By

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you very much former vice president Dan Quayle for sitting down at the O’Connor house with me today to talk a little bit about your life and experiences. Thank you for doing that. Dan Quayle Well, it’s my honor, Your Honor. Sandra Day O’Connor Okay. There’s never been another Arizona person who served or was even considered for Vice President of the United States, was there? No one that served, that’s for sure. No one, was anyone considered, to your knowledge? Oh, I’m sure they’re on a list. Dan Quayle We have, you know, sat seriously. Probably not that seriously. Although I think Senator Kyl was somewhat considered Okay, by 43 as we affectionately call him. George W. Bush. I think he was on the shortlist. I’ve had a number of conversations. with him, and I asked him about the interrogation. And when he started going through all the questions they were asking, I said, you were on the shortlist. Sandra Day O’Connor How about that? Well, it had to be an incredible experience to serve as vice president. Looking back. Are you pleased that you did it? And with it is a very special time?

Dan Quayle Oh, absolutely. I mean, every every moment has its special consideration. And I’ll never forget the time that you swore me in as Vice President of the United States, the 44th Vice President of the United States, Sandra Day O’Connor 1989, January 20. At nine, Dan Quayle yeah, at noon. Yes. And we had to go through a few hoops to get that cleared. Because

Interview

Interview with Congressman Jeff Flake

Interview / By

Sandra Day O’Connor I’m so glad to welcome today. Congressman Flake, who comes from a little bit north of here originally. You have a family history in this state that goes back close to 1888, 1878 was correct. Tell me Jeff Flake Well, my great great grandfather came here to Arizona first in 1878. So that makes me a fifth generation Arizonan. Sandra Day O’Connor My grandfather day named Henry Clay day. Interestingly enough, everybody liked Henry Clay in those days when he was born. So he started the family ranch in that part of the state that was acquired in the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico. The Property south of the Hilo river is today the Mexican border and he started ranching. And the closest town of any size would have been Safford, Arizona the time now Who was your ancestor? In Arizona, Jeff Flake my great, great grandfather was William Jordan flake. He came across the plains with Brigham Young when he was six years old. Sandra Day O’Connor Is that right? Because he would have ended up in Utah. Jeff Flake He did, and then California, and then back, then back to Utah. And then he was assigned or sent by Brigham Young to Arizona in 1878. Sandra Day O’Connor In 1878. Okay, now my grandfather day arrived in 1880. So within two years of each other, right, yours up north and mine over on New Mexico border Jeff Flake here they arrived. They arrived he went and looked for a place to settle and found the valley, Silver Creek Valley, tributary to the little Colorado River

Interview

Interview with Congressman Ed Pastor

Interview / By

Sandra Day O’Connor It is so nice to welcome. Congressman Ed Pastor today in the O’Connor house. Ed Pastor Well, thank you very much.

Sandra Day O’Connor Now, you grew up in the Globe, Arizona area.

Ed Pastor Actually, I’m a Miami guy. The Globe guys were, you know, the Tigers were, they were our rivals. I was a Miami Vandal. Sandra Day O’Connor All right. Ed Pastor That’s where I grew up. Sandra Day O’Connor Okay, well, that’s good. And you ended up going to university at Arizona State, didn’t you? Ed Pastor Yes, I did. Became a Sun Devil, from a vandal to a Sun Devil. Sandra Day O’Connor And a little law school time, too, right? Ed Pastor Well, I had been out of school for about 10 years. Yes, and I needed a higher degree just because of personal desire. And at that time, I was working in Guadalupe, Arizona. I was working with local organization. I was working with the seasonal farm workers and the migrant farm workers there. And a friend of mine, Jim ski said, Why don’t you apply to ASU? They’re looking for Hispanics and, and I’m sure that so I took the LSAT and I did well enough to to enter. And so I went to law school. I spent three years in law school like any other student, I was married, and I had a daughter, so it meant I had to work a little bit. So I don’t have the highest grades from law school was back. In fact, I didn’t make moot court.

Sandra Day O’Connor All right. Okay.

Ed Pastor But do you know what I never took the bar and because I got

Law review article

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: Trends Toward Judicial Restraint

Law review article / By

NOTES

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: TRENDS TOWARD JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

Sandra Day O’Connor began her tenure on the United States Supreme Court without an extensive record as a jurist.1 The substantive impact O’Connor would make on Supreme Court decisions was uncertain when she took the bench. Prior to her nomination in 1981 to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, however, O’Connor favored limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts and enhancing the states’ role in the federal system2. During her confirmation hearings before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, O’Connor testified without reservation con cerning her judicial philosophy.3 In the confirmation hearings, O’Connor confirmed her support of federal judicial restraint.4 According to O’Connor, the Court should not function as a policy making body, but rather should interpret and apply the law.5 In O’Connor’s view, the Court should decide cases on narrow grounds6 and avoid unnecessarily deciding questions of constitutional law.7 O’Connor’s testimony on the proper role of the federal judiciary, however, was not limited to the role of the Court as a branch of the federal government, but extended to the relationship of the federal court system to state courts. In response to questions regarding an article8 written by O’Connor in which she explored the relationship between the state and federal courts, O’Connor clarified her belief in the capacity of state courts

l. See Nomination of Sandra Day