Houston Post, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Court Nominee learned self-reliance early in life

Houston Post, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

For Sandra O’Connor, the U.S. supreme Court Justice-designate born in El Paso and raised on the family ranch ‘straddling the Arizona-New Mexico border, success was part of life that was “just supposed to be,” according to a Houston cousin who shared her childhood.

Born Sandra Day, the girl drove a tractor when she was 10, rode a horse and helped round up the cattle on the Lazy B, her family’s ranch northwest of El Paso and south of Duncan, Ariz., her relatives said. In winters, she attended school In El Paso.

“WE WERE CONSIDERED people. We were not considered little girls who can’t do anything. We played dolls, but were were certainly good with screwdrivers, nails and roundups too,” said Flournoy D. Manzo, who in childhood was always, seemingly, at the side of her year-younger first cousin.

Manzo, now a University of Houston administrator, and Evelyn Wooten, Manzo’s mother and O’Connor’s aunt, Tuesday afternoon were enjoying the thrill of a close relative becoming an historic figure and sharing their joy by opening up the family album. Out spilled photos of two young girls enjoying themselves on a beach, in family and school groups and with horses. Also, out came the O’Connor family holiday cards. One shows her and husband John, an attorney, backpacking.

A 1974 CARD HAS the O’Connors, included the three sons, pictured with powdered wigs and sitting on the “O’Connor Supreme Court.” Sandra O’Connor is listed as “co-chief justice, junior grade,” and her election to the Superior

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, Wall Street Journal

First Woman Chosen: Sandra O’Connor, Arizona Judge, Nominated for the Supreme Court

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, Wall Street Journal / By

This article was prepared by Stephen Wenniel, Robert E. Taylor and Monica Langley.

WASHINGTON – President Reagan picked Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court, a selection that may bring about more of a symbolic than a philosophical change on the court. If, as seems likely, she is confirmed as the 102nd Justice in the 191-year history of the Supreme Court Mrs. O’Connor will become its first woman member. While her nomination holds a symbolic importance for women, the philosophical impact is less certain and it may be several years before the effect Is fully realized. The 51-year-old Phoenix Republican Is described by Arizona lawyers as moderate to conservative with much of the independence and judicial restraint that marked her predecessor on the high court. “It’s going to be Potter Stewart all over again,” says John Frank, a Phoenix attorney and longtime Supreme Court watcher. Classmate of Rehnquist Those who know her say she Is less fixed In Ideology than Justice William Rehnquist, the court’s most hard-and-fast conservative, who was a classmate at Stanford University Law School and with whom she has remained in contact. Charles Ares, a University of Arizona law professor, says she isn’t “a right-wing ideologue. I guess that means she’ll be in the middle.” On some specific issues, her views appear to be consistent with the President’s, according to administration aides and others. As a state senator, she helped draft death penalty legislation

Houston Post, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

During tenure on Arizona court O’Connor hasn’t tackled hot issues

Houston Post, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Analysis Includes interpretation by the writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – Although she proved herself-a scholarly and lucid writer in her short tenure on Arizona’s appeals court, Judge Sandra O’Connor never really faced the hot legal and constitutional issues of the day. An analysis of nearly all the opinions she’s written in 1½ years on the state bench shows that she dealt mainly with routine matters, such as workmen’s compensation and divorces. That means her supporters and detractors must look elsewhere for the views of President Reagan’s nominee to become the first female member of the Supreme Court – particularly in the areas of abortion and women’s rights. For some, that search already ls over. Within hours of Tuesday’s announcement, the Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion group announced they would oppose the nomination of the Republican jurist. A spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee said the opposition would be based on stances O’Connor took as a member of the Arizona state Senate. But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said O’Connor had told the president “she ls personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorrent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area.” Although she declined to discuss “substantive issues” pending her confirmation, O’Connor told a news conference in Phoenix Tuesday she has special “appreciation for the legislative process.”

Houston Chronicle, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Arizona judge ‘middle-of-roader’: Houston relatives say Supreme Court nominee matches Reagan ideas

Houston Chronicle, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

The woman likely to become the first woman to sit on the United States _Supreme Court doesn’t stand to any side, according to her Houston cousin “She’s almost a middle-of-the-roader. And I don’t think she’s a feminist, either . I think she’s interested in people, rather than men or women per se. That’s just the way we were both brought up,” says Flournoy Manzo, director of the International Trade Institute at the University of Houston and a first cousin to Judge Sandra D. O’Connor. Contacted Tuesday after President Reagan nominated Mrs . O’Connor, an Arizona appellate court Judge and a former Arizona state senator, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart, Mrs. Manzo described the cousin she grew up with in El Paso as “a very intelligent and astute person who s interested in everything.” In fact, says Mrs. Manzo, when Reagan first suggested that he might give a woman the Supreme Court nod, we all immediately thought of my cousin.” . Not only has she had an outstanding career, but she’s been extremely active in both the Republican Party and state polltics in Arizona. She was even asked by some people there to run for governor four year s ago, but she decided against that .” Mrs. Manzo says. “At least to us, she seemed a very likely candidate.” Mrs. Manzo, 52, says she and Judge O’Connor have remained very close since the days when they used to alternate spending winters in El Paso at her family home and summers at her cousin’s

Newspaper article, San Diego Tribune, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Happy O’Connor saves answers for hearings

Newspaper article, San Diego Tribune, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON – Many people hailed President Reagan’s choice today of Arizona Judge Sandra O’Connor to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, but anti-abortion leaders and the head of the Moral Majority vowed to fight the nomination. At a news conference in Phoenix O’Connor said Reagan telephoned her yesterday afternoon and told her she was his choice. But she repeatedly refused to discuss abortion, equal rights for women or any other “substantive questions pending the confirmation hearings.” A beaming O’Connor kissed her husband and three sons and told reporters who questioned her lack of federal judicial experience: “Time will tell whether I have a lot to learn.” Asked to describe her feelings on being the first women appointed she said: “I don’t know that I can. In approaching the work on the bench I will approach it with care and effort and do the best job I can do.” Former President Nixon called the nomination of O’Connor, who served as co-chairman of Arizona’s state committee to re-elect Nixon “a dramatic breakthrough for women, the court and the nation.” But the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Moral Majority condemned the selection, saying: “Either the president. did not have sufficient information about. Judge O’Connor’s background on social issues or he chose to ignore that information.” Her “record indicates she is not an opponent of abortion on demand and is opposed to attempts to curb this biological holocaust … ,” he said. The National Right to Life Committee, which voiced

Magazine article, TIME

TIME Cover Story

Magazine article, TIME / By

COVER STORY

The Brethren’s First Sister

A Supreme Court nominee-and a triumph for common sense Ronald Reagan lived up to a campaign pledge last week, and the nation cheered. At a hastily arranged television appearance in the White House press room, the President referred to his promise as a candidate that he would name a woman to the Supreme Court, explaining: “That is not to say I would appoint a woman merely to do so. That would not be fair to women, nor to future generations of all Americans whose lives are so deeply affected by decisions of the court. Rather, I pledged to appoint a woman who meets the very high standards I demand of all court appointees.”

So saying, he introduced his nominee to succeed retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart as “a person for all seasons,” with “unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity.” She was Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, the first woman to serve as majority leader of a U.S. state legislature and, since 1979, a judge in the Arizona State Court of Appeals. O’Connor’s name had been floated about in rumors ever since Stewart, 66, announced his intention to retire last month, but her nomination, which must be approved by the Senate in September, was a stunning break with tradition.

In its 191- year history, 101 judges have served on the nation’s highest court, and all have been men. By giving the brethren their first sister, Reagan provided not only a breakthrough on the bench but a powerful push forward in the shamefully

Magazine article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times

Arizona Judge Reported on List for Supreme Court

Magazine article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times / By

WASHINGTON, July 1 – Sandra D. O’Connor, a 51-year-old judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, is a top contender to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Reagan Administration sources said last night.

They confirmed that Judge O’Connor was on the so-calk!d “short list” of possible nominees by President Reagan to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart and said that she was one of a very few persons who were interviewed by Administration officials in the past few days.

An administration official said today that the “short list” contained fewer than five names, winnowed by the Attorney General from an original “long list” of about 25 names. The official declined to say how many names on the “short list were women.

Judge O’Connor has been an active member of the Republican Party, and is described by party members as politically conservative. She was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, 18 months ago by Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat.

She earlier served two full terms in the Arizona State Senate and was elected majority leader before being elected a Superior Court Judge in Phoenix in 1975. In 1972 she was co-chairman of the Arizona state committee in behalf of President Nixon’s re-election.

A well-placed Administration source indicated last night that Judge O’Connor had emerged as one of the top candidates for the post.

There was no indication how many more potential nominees would be interviewed nor when the President

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times

A Reputation for Excelling’ – Sandra Day O’Connor

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times / By

Judge Sandra Day O’Connor’s place in history is already secure, based on today’s announcement that she will be President Reagan’s nominee as the first woman on the United States Supreme Court.
But if her past is prologue, after her Senate confirmation Judge O’Connor might well go on to leave even larger ”footprints on the sands of time,” as Mr. Reagan, quoting Longfellow, described the mark of United States Justices. Thus far in her 51 years, Judge O’Connor has compiled an impressive list of academic, civic, political and legal achievements.
”She’s finished at the top in a lot of things,” said Mary Ellen Simonson of Phoenix, who was a legislative aide when Mrs. O’Connor was majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, the first woman in the nation to hold such a leadership position.
”She has a reputation for excelling,” Mrs. Simonson continued. ”As a result she’s been one of the state’s leading role models for women. Now she’s a national role model.”
Judge O’Connor, who currently sits on the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, refused this afternoon to discuss ”substantive issues” when she met with reporters in Phoenix. And, because of her short, 18-month tenure on the appeals court and its somewhat limited docket, she has faced few of the nettlesome issues routinely taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Nevertheless, her past and her acquaintances provide some insights into her mind and personality.
She is said, by friend and foe alike

Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times

A Judge Well Chosen

Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The New York Times / By

Sandra Day O’Connor’s confirmation hearings for appointment to the Supreme Court were more of a challenge to her stamina than her intellect. She was, if anything, over-prepared for the fumbling, tedious questions of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee, leaving single-issue inquisitors in utter disarray.

Senators East, Grassley and Denton did what they could to make the committee look silly with repeated, clumsy and ultimately futile inquiries into Judge O’Connor’s views on pro- abortion court decisions and anti-abortion legislation. They affected surprise at her courteous but steady refusal to prejudge issues that still clamor for the Court’s attention. They helped her look very good indeed.

Not all of her testimony was reassuring. In her desire to enhance the prestige of state courts, Judge O’Connor was disquietingly cool to arguments that citizens with disputes based on the Constitution and Federal law should have easy access to the Federal courts. She testified with refreshing candor that the 1966 decision on confessions, *Miranda v. Arizona*, which some cite as an example of coddling criminals, had done little harm to law enforcement in her home state.

Yet she simplistically downgraded as “judge-made” the long-standing rule against courtroom use of illegally seized evidence. She also dismissed so-called judicial “activism” too quickly. “I know the difference between judging and legislating,” she said, the difference between “interpreting the law” and “making