Law review article

Affirmative Action: Will Justice O’Connor Author Its End?

Law review article / By

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: WILL JUSTICE O’CONNOR AUTHOR ITS END?

INTRODUCTION

WHEN faced with the issue of whether a governmentally employed race based affirmative action program violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been sharply divided. This sharp division was illustrated by the fact that the Court did not reach its first majority decision until May 1989, nearly eleven years after the first major decision dealing with a racial affirmative action program.1 Prior to 1989, the Court addressed three major cases dealing with the constitutionality of governmentally imposed affirmative action programs. In two cases, the Court invalidated the programs, and in the other the Court upheld the program.2 Failing to reach a majority, the Court delivered plurality opinions in each case.3 The failure to reach a majority opinion in those cases resulted from the justices’ disagreement on the appropriate judicial standard of review to be applied. 4

The Court reached a majority opinion in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), the first majority on the issue since first addressing it in Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (1986) (invalidating the provision); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980) (upholding the provision); Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (invalidating the special admissions program). See also United States v. Par

Law review article

Foreword: First Women: The Contribution of American Women to the Law

Law review article / By

FOREWORD

FIRST WOMEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN WOMEN TO THE LAW

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

This issue of the Valparaiso University Law Review is devoted to the contributions of some “firsts” among women in the law. Each of these women was the first to engage in a wide variety of activities previously thought to be impossible or improper for women to do. All of us owe a great debt of gratitude to our determined predecessors who, despite daunting obstacles, made possible the professional and other opportunities women lawyers enjoy today. As another woman who was the first to serve in a position formerly held only by men, I can appreciate with particular sensitivity the strength of character and the determination these adventurous women demonstrated in pursuing their career goals against far more formidable barriers.

These earlier legal pioneers faced a profession and a society that espoused what has been called “the cult of domesticity,” a view that women were by nature different from men, suited only for motherhood and homelife- compassionate, selfless, gentle, moral, and pure. Their minds were attuned to art and religion, not logic. Men, on the other hand, were thought to be fitted by nature for competition and intellectual discovery in the world-battle hardened, shrewd, authoritative, and tough-minded. A male attorney of the period commented, “[A] woman can’t keep a secret, and for that reason if no other, I doubt if anybody will ever consult a woman lawyer.”1

The four women

Interview, TV appearance

Interview with Bill Moyers – “In Search of the Constitution”

Interview, TV appearance / By

Bill Moyers
Justice O’Connor will not discuss the controversial issues that keep coming to the court. abortion. Above all, she says as do other justices, that it would be improper for her to do so. But one of her major opinions on the court has caused alarm amongst supporters of abortion, about how she might rule on future cases. During her confirmation hearings in 1981, she had this to say,

Sandra Day O’Connor
I do not believe that as a nominee, I can tell you how I might vote on a particular issue, which may come before the court or endorse or criticize specific Supreme Court decisions presenting issues which may well come before the court again,

Bill Moyers
triggered a stormy controversy with the decision on Roe vs wade in 1973. ruling that a woman has the fundamental right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, the first trimester, the state could only outlaw abortion altogether in the third trimester when the fetus is considered viable when it can live outside the womb. In 1983, in a case from Akron, Ohio, the court reaffirmed Roe versus Wade, it struck down regulations passed by the City Council that would make abortions more difficult to obtain. The court has never said that you may not regulate abortion in the interest of the life or the health of the unborn child has just never faced that question. Feminists leaders claimed another victory for women.

Sandra Day O’Connor
And I think what they were hoping to that as a precedent for

Law review article

Foreword (to Commemorative Edition: 75th Anniversary of New England School of Law)

Law review article / By

FOREWORD

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor*

This year the New England School of Law will commemorate its 75th anniversary. Appropriately, the New England Law Review will publish in this issue articles addressing law school education today, and the history of women in the law.

The development of the New England School of Law reflects the dra matic expansion of employment opportunities for women over the last half century. The Law School was founded in 1908 as the Portia Law School, which was the only school in the United States established exclusively for the legal education of women. Although the School became coeducational in 1934, it has continued to demonstrate an admirable sensitivity to those groups under-represented in the legal profession. The Law School may justifiably credit itself with anticipating and responding to the educational needs of mi norities, and with leading the struggle to ensure a truly equal opportunity to obtain a legal education. The results of these efforts are only now beginning to be recognized. Over the next twenty-five years there is no doubt that court room benches, law facilities, and law firm partnerships will reflect the in creased percentage of women and other minority groups who are now being admitted to practice.

The role of the law school should encompass preparation of its students for both professional competence and ethical responsibility. For too many years law schools have neglected practical skills in favor of training in legal method

Law review article, Speech

Our Judicial Federalism

Law review article, Speech / By

Case Western Reserve Law Review

Volume 35 1984-85 Number 1

OUR JUDICIAL FEDERALISM*

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor**

IN PREPARING for today’s talk I knew you might like to hear how I set about deciding cases, just what really goes on inside the Court, and how I feel personally about my colleagues on the bench, and so on. But one of the qualities desirable for a Justice is to be judicious and, therefore, those subjects are best avoided. It is not even advisable to speak about most of the interesting issues of the day, since, as Alexis de Tocqueville noted, almost every issue in American life is likely, sooner or later, to end up before the courts.1 When a Justice expresses an opinion on war or peace, on religion or politics, or even on science or literature, she always risks having her words embarrassingly quoted back at her in a brief or oral argu ment. As a result, we usually follow the advice of Calvin Coolidge:

“If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called on to repeat it.” 2

It is clear, however, that it is appropriate for me to say some thing today, and that what I say should somehow be suitable for the Canary Lecture. The Sumner Canary Lectureship honors a man who served as a leader of the Bar, as a United States Attorney, and a judge of the Ohio Court of Appeals.3 The Canary Lecture series is affiliated with the Case Western Reserve Law School, an institu tion which, as you know, originated as a department of Western Reserve and ultimately flourished as an integral

Law review article

Dean Toni M. Massaro – A Tribute

Law review article / By

Toni Massaro was named dean of the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law ten years ago. That’s a long time in the life of a dean, and she’s had a good run. Chief Justice Harlan Stone once compared being Chief Justice to being the dean of Columbia Law School-he said that in both positions, your job is to do those things the janitor either can’t or won’t do. It’s not an easy job, but it is one that Dean Massaro has done with aplomb and good humor.

Dean Massaro has had many successes during her tenure. She helped to recruit and retain outstanding faculty members, improved the College’s academic reputation, renovated the campus on time and within budget, started the Rehnquist Center, and increased private funding for the College. She has fostered connections between the law school, its alumni, the bench, the practicing bar, the University, and the Tucson community. These ties are important and will live long past her time as dean.

The good news is that Dean Massaro will be staying in Tucson to teach and continue her scholarship. And she is a fabulous teacher-before becoming dean, she received the College of Law’s teacher of the year award six times.

Dean Massaro was the first woman to serve as dean of the College of Law, but I am sure will not be the last. As with leadership positions in many professions, each dean of a law school stands on the shoulders of the deans that came before her, and the deans that follow will stand on her shoulders. Dean Massaro has left

Interview, Magazine article

Interview with Litigation Magazine

Interview, Magazine article / By

Thoughts on Safeguarding Judicial Independence: An Interview with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor by Elaine E. Bueklo and Jeffrey Cole By any measure, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is a remarkable woman. She grew up on a cattle ranch in Arizona and majored in economics at Stanford University, graduating in 1950 with high honors. Two years later, she graduated magna cum laude from Stanford Law School, where she served on the Stanford Law Review and was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif It was there that she met her husband, John, and began her lifelong friendship with William Rehnquist. She returned to Arizona and to the private practice of law until 1965. There then followed a four-year stint as assistant attorney general for Arizona. In 1969, she was appointed by the governor ofArizona to a vacancy in the state senate. Thereafter, she was elected to the Arizona Senate and served as the Republican majority leader—the first woman to serve as majority leader of a state senate in the United States. But her ultimate aspirations and acumen were judicial, not political, and she successfully ran to be a trial judge for the Superior Court of Maricopa County in 1975. Four years later, she was nominated by the newly elected Democratic governor of Arizona to the Arizona State Court of Appeals. President Ronald Reagan nominated her to be the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States in July 1981. She was immediately and unanimously confirmed by the

Interview, Law review article

“Thoughts on Safeguarding Judicial Independence: An Interview with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor”

Interview, Law review article / By

By any measure, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is a remarkable woman. She grew up on a cattle ranch in Arizona and majored in economics at Stanford University, graduating in 1950 with high honors. Two years later, she graduated magna cum laude from Stanford Law School, where she served on the Stanford Law Review and was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif. It was there that she met her husband, John, and began her lifelong friendship with William Rehnquist. She returned to Arizona and to the private practice of law until 1965. There then followed a four-year stint as assistant attorney general for Arizona. In 1969, she was appointed by the governor of Arizona to a vacancy in the state senate. Thereafter, she was elected to the Arizona Senate and served as the Republican majority leader–the first woman to serve as majority leader of a state senate in the United States.

But her ultimate aspirations and acumen were judicial, not political, and she successfully ran to be a trial judge for the Superior Court of Maricopa County in 1975. Four years later, she was nominated by the newly elected Democratic governor of Arizona to the Arizona State Court of Appeals. President Ronald Reagan nominated her to be the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States in July 1981. She was immediately and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Justice O’Connor retired from the Court in January 2006 after 25 years of distinguished service during which she played

Interview, Newspaper article

Interview in Principal Leadership magazine

Interview, Newspaper article / By

Concerned about the declining emphasis on civics in schools, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day C’Connor launched iCivics, a web-based education project for students and teachers. Editor’s note: For more information about iCivics, visit www.iCivicsorg. Sandra Day O’Connor, retired Supreme Court Justice, the first woman appointed to the court—and videogame designer? But yes. Justice O’Connor is the driving force behind iCivics, a nonprofit organization designed to increase students’ knowledge of civics through interactive i computer games that focus on history, laws, and government. “When I retired from the Supreme Court,” she explained, “I noticed ‘ that the attacks directed at our judicial system were broader and more vitriolic than any I had heard in my lifetime. It seemed to me that many of these attacks stemmed fi”om a basic misunderstanding of the role the judicial branch plays in our government. When I took a closer look at the problem, I saw that it wasn’t just the courts that our citizens misunderstood. Only one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government, much less say what they do. The decline of civic education has left our nation ignorant of the role of government as a whole. ” And she’s not the only one who is concerned about this gap in students’ education. Results from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that although the average score in civics for 4th graders has increased since 1998, scores at the 8th-grade

Law review article

A Distinguished Path in Public Service (Tribute to Judge Judith Kaye)

Law review article / By

Chief Judge Kaye and I have shared similar life experiences-she is my kind of woman. As she said when accepting an award that bears my name, the beginnings of our paths “in some ways [were] drastically different.”1 She aptly described my childhood as a cowgirl on my parents’ ranch: “mending fences, riding with cowboys, shooting [my] own .22-calibre rifle.” 2 Hers was different; she grew up “at the foot of the Catskill Mountains, working in [her] parents’ clothing store.”3 As she was quick to point out, “[n]o one there mended fences of any sort. There wasn’t a cowboy in sight, and use of a rifle could land you some serious time in the Sullivan County Jail.”4

However, in significant respects, we have led similar lives. Chief Judge Kaye attended New York University School of Law less than ten years after I studied at Stanford Law School, a time when not too many women studied law-she was one of ten women in a class of three hundred students. We both faced gender discrimination when first we sought legal work. “A decade after Justice O’Connor graduated from law school,” she has written, “the big firms still had no wel come mat out for women.” 5 Nonetheless, after “career path[s] [with] twists, turns and detours, with marriage and children along the way,” we both found rewarding careers in public service as judges. 6 About two years after I became the first woman to serve the Supreme Court, she became the first woman appointed to New York State’s highest court. We served our respective