Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

… With no Apologies to Aristophanes

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Aristophanes’ ashes must have erupted like Mt. St. Helens when President Reagan named a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some 411 years before Christ, Aristophanes was writing in “Lysistrata” that, “There is no animal more invincible than a woman, nor fire either, nor any wildcat so ruthless.” Images arise of Sandra Day O’Connor clawing at the eyes of Chief Justice Burger as he tries to impose some argum ent upon the rest of the Court. And Shakespeare’s bones must have beaten each other like castanets , muffling out even the strident protests of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. It was Shakespeare, after all, who wrote: “Frailty, thy name is woman!” Can’t you just see tears cascading down Mrs. O’Connor’s black robe as frailty prevents her from dealing with some absurd opinion by her old Stanford classmate, Justice William Rehnquist? Reagan Praised Whether he chose Mrs. O’Connor to keep a campaign promise, or because he has been catching unmitigated hell from Republican women who say he hasn’t given enough decent jobs to females, President Reagan deserves high praise for naming Mrs. O’Connor to the nation’s highest tribunal. After 191 years of wallowing in the inanities of Aristophanes and Shakespeare, and assorted chauvinisms in between, it is good to see Mr. Reagan respond to the principle that America’s commitment to justice is deepened when women sit on the Court. We go back and forth from the trifling to the vulgar in our assertions that women are “different” from men. It is time that

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

From Myra Bradwell to Sandra Day O’Connor…

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

It was just the other day that I was invoking the 19th-century shade of Myra Bradwell, but with the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, the old story takes on an especially poignant meaning . From Mrs. Bradwell to Mrs. O’Connor, it’s been a long, uphill climb for ladies in the law. Myra Bradwell, may she rest in peace, was a native of Vermont who moved to Chicago sometime in the mid-1850s. Not long after ratification of the FourteEjnth Amendment in 1868, she did a most audacious, unfeminine thing: She applied for a license to practice law. Curiously, she did not rely upon the equal protection clause but rather upon the privileges and immunities clause, but in any event the Supreme Court of Illinois summarily turned her down. No women were to be allowed in court. Mrs. Bradwell appealed. In April 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court also gave her the brush-off. !t “‘.as wi~hi~ the police powers of Ilhn01s to hm1t membership in the bar to males only. Only Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dissented, and he didn’t say why. Justice Joseph P. Bradley was so shocked by the whole astonishing idea that he wrote a flaming concurring opinion in which two other justices joined. History, nature, the common law, and “the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial” argued against the proposition. Bradley felt impelled to expand upon the wide difference in the spheres and destinies of man and woman. “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Class Ranks are unverified for justice, nominee

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Stanford University Law School administrators Thursday withdrew their claim that Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist ranked first and nominee Sandra O’Connor third in the school’s 1952 law class. The rankings were reported in a July 7 Stanford press release but cannot be documented, said Robert Beyers, director of Stanford’s public-information office.

Beyers said the release was based on a July 2 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, which quoted a Washington Post story.

“We failed to verify the information prior to issuing the release, and it’s all turned into a big can of worms,” a Stanford spokeswoman said. “We got burned.”

Judge O’Connor, an Arizona appellate judge who was nominated for the Supreme Court on Tuesday by President Reagan, told university officials Wednesday she never was informed by Stanford of her ranking and does not know what it was, Beyers said.

“The ranking did not come from anything release by Judge O’Connor,” said Nancy White, a spokeswoman in the judge’s Phoenix office.

“In fact, she was never even told what her ranking was and had nothing to do with the Stanford press release,” Ms. White told an Arizona Republic reporter Thursday.

Her law-school ranking is not listed on a biography Judge O’Connor released during a press conference in Phoenix on Tuesday.

The biography does list Judge O’Connor as a member of the Order of the Coif, a group restricted to the top 10 percent of law-school graduates.

Rehnquist, also an Arizonan, does not list

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

About Washington: An Occupation of Civil Life

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON, July 10 – There was great change in the nation in 1873, when the men of the Supreme Court sat together and ruled on Bradwell v. Illinois. It was an era when the slaves had been freed, the frontier was retreating and women were fighting for the constitutional right to practice law, tinally reaching the highest court with their case. “God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action.” the ma- jority ruled. “It belongs to men to make, apply and execute the law.” Thus did Myra Bradwell suffer defeat and the State of Illinois enjoy vic- tory in its law banning women lawyers. If Myra Bradwell sought comfort in a separate opinion, she found none in the concurrence of Mr. Justice Bradley, who felt the majority’s language too weak. “Man is, or should be, woman’s p~ tector,” he said, finding that the “deli,, cacy which belongs to the fair sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” “This is the law of the Creator,” declared the man. Time has passed by Mr. Justice Bradley. But he is not forgotten by the successors of Myra Bradwell, particularly as they prepare for the coming Senate inquiry into the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman member of tfie Supreme Court. In the hours after Judge O’Connor’s nomination, this city’s phenomenal predilection for reducing eftnts to quick-fix, white-hot iSsues threatened to make her a mere adjunct to the endless abortion dispute, as more than a dozen anti-abortion lobbying groups found

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Jurist broke tradition for law career, too

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

New York Times

Judge O’Connor was born Sandra Day on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas, but she spent her earliest years on her family’s 162,000-acre ranch, the Lazy B, which her grandfather founded a century ago near Duncan in southeastern Arizona.

Because there were no schools in Duncan that suited her parents, Harry and Ada Mae Day, as a young girl Judge O’Connor was sent to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso and attend school there.

She did well, graduating from high school at age 16. She then entered Stanford University, with which she has maintained a lifelong affiliation, most recently as a trustee.

At a time when most women at Stanford were majoring in education, Judge O’Connor won a bachelor’s degree in economics, awarded with great distinction, and a law degree. She obtained both in six years.

Her sophomore roommate, Marilyn Brown, remembers her as a “very shy” young woman who spoke with the soft accents of western Texas but who seemed more than equal to university life.

…

Although Judge O’Connor’s biography lists her as an Episcopalian, a
friend said neither she nor her husband are active churchgoers.

…

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Pragmatist: Judge O’Connor seems issue-oriented

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

New York Times

Like supporters and detractors of her Supreme Courtnomination, Sandra O’Connor devoted the better part of last week to a review of the state legislation and judicial decisions that constitute the record of much of her public life. I With her office at the Arizona Court of Appeals overflowing with congratulatory bouquets, her desk cluttered with papers and files, and her law clerk, husband and friends helping with the review, Judge O’Connor looked up during a brief break Friday morning to say with a s1 igh, “It’s a nightmare.” “Fifty years is a long time,” she said, “and it’s hard to remember everything you did.” In addition to being a state appellate judge, Sandra O’Connor was, in no particular order, president of the local Heard Museum, a board member of the local Salvation Anny, a director of the Phoenix chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, a director of the local YMCA, a national vice president of the Soroptimist Club, a former trustee of Stanford University, a board member of the Arizona State University Law School and a lay member of the national accrediting body for medical schools. The review is far from complete, but the woman, public and private, who has so far emerged from an examination of those -records and from conversations with friends, colleagues and adversaries, is by political instinct, judicial philosophy, economic standing and personal temperament both similar to and different from the constituency that elected Ronald

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Your Opinion: John Q. Public offers approval of Judge O’Connor

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

With the nomination of Judge Sandra O’Connor to the Supreme Court , controversy has arisen from those objecting to abortion . Whether a woman can handle the job. or will be a “proper “‘ representative , also has been floating around the atmosphere of some conservatives . O’Connor is the first woman ever nominated for a position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. thus you can see the reasoning for doubt – tradition. Evidently the reason President Ronald Reagan chose her wasn’t because she was a woman, but because she was the best qualified for the position . Conside ring she is from Arizona expands the spotlight of att ention in this state ‘s press. But, what do the people from Arizona think ? Was it a wise choice for Reagan to nominate her? We asked some-westside people their opinions. and the reaction was completely positive Joan Hogue : ” I think it’ s wonderful. rm glad to see a woman have a chance to get in.”

Josett Dobbs: “I think it’s good.”

Mike O’Keefe: ” I think it’s good to have a woman representative on t he Supre me Court. Women can make decisions just as well as men.”

Tina Engel: ” I think it’s OK, as long as she’s qualified. There’s nothing wrong wit h a woman being appointed.” Jules Ketcham : ” Well. I’ m not rea l qualified – issues I heard her opinions about make me favor her .” Russe ll Par ker: ” l think it”s great. Sure. there’s nothing wrong with a woman being in there.”