Casa Grande Dispatch, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Arizona Judge’s Opinions Clear

Casa Grande Dispatch, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON (AP) – Restraint and clear writing are the key traits of the decisions written by Judge Sandra D. O’Connor, but they give little indication of her stance on the major issues now being waged In the federal courts. Mrs. O’Connor, a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, was nominated by President Reagan today to become the first woman on the Supreme Court, following the retirement last week of Justice Potter Stewart. In criminal matters, Mrs. O’Connor, 51, generally has ruled against defendants’ claims, deferring to the rulings of trial court judges. An analysis of 14 of her opinions shows no cases Involving any of the major issues that are bound to come up during her Senate confirmation hearings: abortion, women’s rights, homosexual rights and the rights of the accused. – That may be explained in part by the fact that the highest courts in many states tend to hear the most important disputes, while the simpler disputes are relegated to lower-level appeals courts. The Arizona Court of Appeals is the lower-level appellate court in that state. “The power of a court to render a valid judgment is limited by the nature of the suit, and the issues raised in the pleadings. If the court’s judgment exceeds those limits, it is void,” Judge O’Connor wrote in May 1980 overturning a trial court money award In a dispute ov~r support payments in a divorce. Of the 14 opinions reviewed, only two appeared to break new ground. In one the court in September 1980 struck down as unconstitutional

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The Washington Post

Arizona Judge Heads Field for High Court

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

Sandra D. O’Connor, a prominent Arizona jurist with Republican political ties, has emerged as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy that will be created tomorrow when Justice Potter Stewart retires. Administration officials confirmed that O’Connor had been interviewed for the job.

She is believed to be the only potential nominee interviewed so far, and she is one of a few candidates, most of them of women, whose name appears on a “short list” kept by top White House aides and Attorney General William French Smith. “She hasn’t been chosen yet, but she’s close,” said one source.

O’Connor, a judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, has risen quickly through the state’s political and professional circles, impressing colleagues with her intellect, demeanor, organizational ability and conservative views.

The 51-year-old jurist was third in the Stanford law school class in which Justice William Rehnquist finished first. She received one of the highest ratings of any judge evaluated in a 1980 state bar poll — 90 percent favorable. In addition to her legal credentials, O’Connor has strong backing from Arizona’s senators — Barry Goldwater (R) and Dennis DeConcind (D), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — and from former House Republican leader John Rhodes.

“She’s what the president’s looking for,” DeConcini said. “She believes in the court, interpreting the law, not making it.”

This was the criterion President Reagan laid down when he announced Stewart’s

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Arizona judge becomes 1st woman nominated for Supreme Court Post

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

WASHINGTON – President Reagan broke the all-male tradition on the Supreme Court on Tuesday by nominating Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart. Judge O’Connor, 51, becomes the first woman ever nominated to sit on the high court. Reagan, who made the announcement at a news conference, said of Judge O’Connor, “She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.” In remarks prepared for delivery later Tuesday in Chicago at a fundraiser for Gov. James Thompson, R-Ill., Reagan said, “After listening to her and examining her whole record in public life, I am fully satisfied that her appointment is consistent with the principles enunciated in our party platform this past year. “Judge O’Connor, in my view, will bring new luster and new strength to the Supreme Court. I feel certain that her term upon the bench will be one of the proudest legacies of my presidency.” In its 1980 platform, the Republican Party promised to “work for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Judge O’Connor was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state’s second highest court, 18 months ago by Gov. Bruce Babbitt. She was elected as a county judge in 1975 and has received one of the highest

Los Angeles Times, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Appointee Could Give Justices a New Outlook

Los Angeles Times, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON In the long run. the most significant fact about Arizona’s Court of Appeals Judge p~ndr~ Day O’Connor may turn out to benot that she is a woman but that she has served as a state legislator and state judge. O’Connor’s long experience at the state level 1s almost as unusual for the modern-day Supreme Court as is her gender. For the last quartercentury, virtually every person appointed to the high court has come through the same channels : a federal judgeship, a federal government job inWashington or a nationally prominent law practice. Not since Justice William J. Brennan Jr . came to Washington from the New Jersey Supreme Court tn 1956 has any court appointee had experience in a state court system. None of the members of the current court has everserved in a state legislature. If O’Connor gives the Justices a ground-level view of how state courts and legislatures operate, her voice could be highly influential. She could, in fact, become a powerful advocate of President Reagan’s oft-stated desire to give greater power to the states. The Supreme Court is asked regularly to judge the validity of laws enacted by state legislatures and rulings by state courts. Generally, the justices fine it much easier to rule unconstitutional the actions of those state bodies than the laws enacted by Congress or the actions of federal agencies. In the court term that has just ended, for example, the Supreme Court moved further in the direction of judicial restraint than at any time in

Editorial, Scottsdale Daily Progress, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-O’Connor Mail Heavy

Editorial, Scottsdale Daily Progress, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

An organized mail campaign is being conducted against Sandra O’Connor, who has been nominated by President Ronald Reagan for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is easy to spot because letters use the same phrases and often are mimeographed. Such campaigns are common, and this one is no different than others . It contains the usual mudslinging, distortion of facts, innuendoes and character assassination. Fortunately, O’Connor has been in the political arena for a long time, and she probably is paying little attention to the misguided and misinformed attacks. Having known O’Connor for many years, and having worked with her on civic and political projects, we are amused that attacks are coming from the far right. Her record shows that she is a member of Arizona’s conservative establishment, and she definitely is not a liberal. The worst smearing and distorting is coming from anti-abortionists. The truth is that she is not an advocate of abortion and took a middle ground as a state senator. It is probable that the nomination will be approved without serious opposition. In the process, members of the Senate should recognize that it is not judicially appropriate for a prospective justice to give opinions on issues which the court will have to decide. If O’Connor is forced to do this, she may have a conflict of interest when related cases come up. Narrow issues do not detennine judicial fitness. Rather, the Senate must weigh O’Connor’s knowledge of law, understanding of the Constitution

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-abortion Scottsdale doctor urges rejecting Judge O’Connor

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

WASHINGTON – A doctor from Scottsdale on Friday reluctantly opposed the nomination of Sandra O’Connor as the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court because Judge O’Connor refused to declare her unqualified support for the anti -abortion movement dUl’ing Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Dr. Carolyn Gerster, co-founder of the Arizona Right to Life Committee, told the panel on its final day of hearings into the nomination that she regrets having to oppose Judge O’Connor, whom she has known since the early 1970s. Dr. Gerster, herself a successful woman in a maledominated profession, said, “I believe the nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court is about 200 years overdue. I wish with all my heart that I could support this nominee from Arizona.” She praised the judge and former Arizona state senator as “a highly intelligent, dedicated, capable and likable person.” But she opposed the nomination because she is not satisfied that Judge O’Connor, whose three days of testimony ended Friday, fully has repudiated certain pro-abortion votes she cast while a member of the Arizona Legislature from 1969 to 1975. At the conclusion of the hearing, Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., reiterated his confidence that Judge O’Connor will be confirmed overwhelmingly by the full Senate. But he backtracked from earlier predictions that the confirmation will come as soon as next week. Thurmond said the Judiciary Committee will meet Tuesday to consider the nomination, but he noted

Newspaper article, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-Abortionists to Oppose O’Connor

Newspaper article, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON – The Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization said today they would seek to block Senate confirmation of Arizona Court Of Appeals Judge Sandra D. O’Connor as a Supreme Court justice because of her views on abortion. “Sandra O’Connor had a consistent and strong pro-abortion voting record while a senator in Arizona,” said Dr. J.C. Wilkie, president of the National Right -to-Life Committee. President Reagan, in announcing Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, said he was completely satisfied with her record on right-to-life issues. He did not elaborate. WILKIE AND Richard Viguerie, publisher of the Conservative Digest, spoke bitterly of Reagan’s choice, charging that the president had ignored the pledge of the Republican 1980 platform to name judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Douglas Badger, a lobbyist for the Christian Action Council, a Protestant group that opposes abortion, explained the opposition to Mrs. O’Connor by citing three votes which he said she cast in the Arizona Senate. Badger said that in 1970 – before the Supreme Court ‘s 1973 abortion decision – she voted for a bill that would have legalized abortions in Arizona under certain circumstances. He was unable to detail those circumstances. THEN IN 197 4, he said, she voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Republican caucus against a resolution calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortions. Also in 1974,

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-Abortionists only apparent foes of Judge O’Connor as hearing starts

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

WASHINGTON – Anti-abortion lobbyists ap• _pear to be the only ones opposing Senate confirmation of Sandra O’Connor of Phoenix as the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins a •Ulree-day hearing on President Reagan’s nominaton M Judge O’Connor to succeed Justice Potter :S~;who retired July 3. , The hearings will. be televised on KAET, Channel 8, beginning at 7 p.m. today, Thursday and Friday. Several ardent opponents of legalized abortion are scheduled to appear before the 18-member committee to speak against Judge O’Connor’s confirmation. The~ base their opposition largely on the belief that her voting record in the Arizona Senate from 1969 to 1975 does not establish unequivocal support for the right-to-life movement. Political observers, however, expect their testi• mony fo have little influence on the committee’s vote. “I am not aware of any senator who has firmly planted his foot and said he is not going to vote for her,” said Bob Maynes, a spokesman for Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., a Judiciary Committee member. Maynes said the lobbyists who oppose Judge O’Conner seem to be misinterpreting her public record on the abortion issue. ”She; has said many times that she is personally opposed to abortion,” he said. “What she will not do, understandably, is commit herself in advance on hypothetical questions about what she would do if such.and-such a case came before the Supreme Court, and that’s apparently what has some people

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-abortionists gather to oppose Judge O’Connor

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

DALLAS – Anti-abortion leaders urged Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor remove herself from consideration or that President Reagan withdraw her name before Senate confirmation hearings begin next week. Nellie Gray of March for Life assailed Judge O’Connor ‘s nomination at a news conference beginning a 12- hour rally by a coalition of conservative Christians. She called the upcoming confirmation process for the former Arizona legislator “fatally flawed.” Miss Gray said that if Reagan and Judge O’Connor ignore her group’s d~~ds , “The Senate should recog01ze 1~ duty as an advising and consentmg_ body to bring the import.ant questions abeut the nomination before the hearings and to get the full facts before the Senate .” …