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

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Tough judge keeps cool in hearings

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

WASHINGTON – Sandra Day O’Connor, 51, wife, mother, lawyer, politician and judge, gave a polished performance last week as she took another step toward becoming the first woman associate justice of U.S. Supreme Court.

She appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for three days of hearings on her confirmation, something considered a foregone conclusion since July 7, when President Reagan nominated her. Nothing during the hearing altered that conclusion. There were few surprises.

Everyone knew from the start that most of the committee’s 18 members intended to support her. Everyone knew the only meaningful opposition to her would be voiced by anti-abortion lobbyists. They view with dismay her voting record on that issue as a member of the Arizona
Senate.

And even they knew that their pleas to reject her appointment would for the most part, go unheeded. What did surprise many was Judge O’Connor’s impeccable performance before the panel and before the bank of television lights, the horde of reporters and a national audience of millions.

She gave the impression with every answer that her words had been contemplated, researched and rehearsed. She did not make those infamous gaffes that all public figures dread – gaffes that often result in embarrassing headlines.

None of the senators, not even the “pro-lifers,” unnerved her. They got the answers she wanted to give – nothing more. At no time did she stutter, mumble or falter, or get angry or snappish. And she appeared to be tireless.

On Wednesday, the first day of the hearing, at 4:20 p.m. Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., suggested a recess to give Judge O’Connor a break. She told Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, the 78-year-old South Carolina Republican, that if he wanted a recess, that would be fine with her, but she could keep going.

Op ed, San Francisco Chronicle, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Why a Woman Justice will Make a Difference

Op ed, San Francisco Chronicle, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

President Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, and a great hue and cry went up. , Not about whether a woman’s place is on the Supreme Cou~–Or wJletber O’Connor was quahf1ed. Or who was going to take care of 1 her clllldreo (never mind that her three sons are all taller than she – that question has been put to other women with grown children). The storm centered around one issue: her stand on abortion. Could it be that the sex of the new nominee makes no difference any more? A recent New York Times-CBS News poll suggests so. Seventy-two percent of those asked said it made no difference to them whether a man or a woman was appointed to the Supreme Court.

I take that to mean that per• haps a large percentage of the public is open-minded enough to think that a woman can do what has been considered a man’s job for 191 years. Or that maybe people simply think it’s no ‘?nger autom~tic that women in high .places will ,ote the party line on so-called women’s issues. On the one band. it’s heartening the public has come so far in its acceptance of female leadership.

On the other hand, I believe there are some very real ways in which a female justice will make a difference. I believe her presence alone may change the way women perceive themselves as well as the way the public perceives ~omen’s leadership abilities. It will s~ow other women in the law – and little girls thinking about the law – that the door to the top is not closed. Whether or not

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

White House sets up ‘pipeline’ for disguntled conservatives

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

Apparently trying to quell the rising waters of discontent among groups on the right, White House chief of sta~ James A. Baker III has established a regular pipeline for communications with several conservative groups that are upset about the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. ! Baker acknowledged yesterday that, in a recent meeting with representatives of several conservativei groups, he establ.ished a regular pro-j cess to permit the groups to bring, their views on sensitive issues to the White House. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Research and Education. Foundation, who was present at the’ luncheon meeting in Baker’s office, said many conservative groups are still extremely upset by the admin-, stration’s action in the Supreme Court nomination. “I tried to explain to Jim Baker the damage that had been done to the coalition” of Republicans, religious groups, and activists on conservative causes, Weyrich said, adding that he was not sure Baker understands the extent of the rift. Baker and the representatives of five conservative groups agreed to establish a regular memo channel into the White House so that groups on the right could alert the White House to their concern on some selected issues. “It was a meeting to establish and maintain lines of communication,” Baker said yesterday. “It was designed to make it clear that in appointing Sandra O’Connor the president went to great lengths to satisfy himself on her views … that in making this nomination

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

White House rebuts charge that nominee has voted for abortions

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

WASHINGTON, July 8 – President Reagan was reported today to be urging some of his conservative allies to “keep an open mind” on the qualifications of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, his newly announced choice for the United States Supreme Court. until her Confirmation hearings are completed. Faced with the possibility of a vigorous campaign by antiabortion groups against Judge O’Connor, meanwhile, the White House attempted a counterattack by directly rebutting the charge that she voted on several occasions in favor of abortions. White House spokesmen asserted further that Judge O’Connor bad never been an activist on any issues related to feminism. David R. Gergen. the senior White House Spokesman, quoted the Arizona judge on the subject of the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution as being “neither as enthusiastic as some proponents nor as alarmed by it as some opponents.” Judge O’Connor, who has been described by the White House as person. ally opposed to abortions, has said that she will not discuss her views until her confirmation hearings. White House officials acknowledge that the judge regards abortion a legitimate matter for regulation by the legislative branch. By the end of the day, Administration officials said that they were encouraged by the prospects for confirmation of Judge O’Connor in the Senate. Yesterday, Mr. Reagan had Senator Jesse Helms, the conservative Republican from North Carolina, visit him at the White House to assuage his concerns about Judge

Christian Science Monitor, Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Where New Right and Old Right Diverge

Christian Science Monitor, Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Goldwater’s blunt defense of O’Connor nomination draws line By JJllia Malone Staff correspondent of The Christian Science :lonitor Washington He has been called “Mr. Conservative.” “You may remember some of the things Barry Goldwater said in his [1964 presidential[ campaign honest, true, blunt things,” writes New Right strategist Richard A. Viguerie, who credited the Arizona Hepub lican senator with giving “vitality” to conservatism. But now Senator Goldwater is hurling some of that “blunt” language at Mr. Viguerie’s New Right for its outcry against Judge Sandra Day O’Connor. President Reagan’s choice for the US Supreme Court. “A lot of foolish claptrap has been written and spoken” about Judge O’Connor. said Goldwater last week on the Senate floor. (Earlier he had said other things, not printable in this newspaper, about Moral Majority ‘s opposition to Judge O’Connor. an Arizonan.) The flap over Mr. Reagan’s nominee, the first woman ever designated for the Supreme Court and an apparent moderate on women’s rights and abortion, has brought out the cracks in the conservative coalition . While conservatives unite on cutting government spending, they divide on the importance of the “social issues” like abortion. In fact, there are several strains of conservatives. according to Herb B. Berkowitz. spokesman for the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that tries to span all of the groups on the right of the political spectrum Goldwater and columnist William F. Buckley Jr. re present the

Chicago Tribune, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

When the high court gets new ‘low man’

Chicago Tribune, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

JUDGE SANDRA DAY O’Connor of Arizona has become the first woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and every indication is that she will be confirmed with a minimum of trouble. However, there is potential trouble waiting for her when she actually arrives in Washington to join the court as a justice. It has to do with a centuries-old tradition of the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t make any difference, if she weren’t a woman; but she is, and it is likely that the male justices are fretting over what to do about it. Specifically, it’s this: When the justices of the Supreme Court meet to deliberate, no one else is allowed in the room. No one: no secretaries, no assistants, no clerks. This is how it has been down through the years, and this is how the justices like it. Actually, in an age when every underassistant press secretary has a flock of aides, it’s kind of nice that the Supreme Court justices like to do things all by themselves,- BUT THIS is where the problem comes in. Since there are no secretaries or assistants, any menial tasks that come up during deliberations have to be done by one or another of the justices. And, traditionally, the junior member of the court has been assigned to be the “gofer”-the person who has to do the annoying dirty work. It’s part of the fraternity atmosphere of the court. When you’re the new boy you do the menial work, and then when another spot opens up, you get to have the menial work done for you. It’s always been that way. Except now we are

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

What to Ask Judge O’Connor

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

Some of the objections to Sandra O’Connor are about as relevant to her fitness for the Supreme Court as abortions are relevant to stadiums. The right-t~life movement seems to think that abortion is germane to everything, so it can’t understand why Judge O’Connor, when she was the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, opposed an anti-abortion rider to a football stadium bill because it seemed non-germane. We’d be troubled if she had seen a connection. But zealotry is not the only basis for raising questions about nominees for the Supreme Court. Their long-run philosophical positions are generally wholly unpredictable. Yet a President’s most lasting legacy may reside in the mind and manner of the Justices he appoints. The Senate has a duty to explore both responsibly. At first glance, her record is appealing. But much more needs to be known about her and about the depth and nature of her conservatism. How Judge O’Connor handles herself under questioning also will tell much about the quality of the President’s choice. The art of getting confirmed is openness where possible – and circumspection when the _ questions get too close to prejudging issues that may come before the Court. • Some questions arise from the uniqueness of the nomination; Judge O’Connor follows 101 male justices. Others arise from the simple fact that so little is known of her outside Arizona, where she gained prominence as an assistant state attorney general, legislator, judge and civic leader. What does

Newspaper mention, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

What’s Next? Pink Taffeta Justice Robes?

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

WASHINGTON (UPI) – Sexism dies hard in some places in Washington. A longtime official of the Senate, which has only two women members – the most it has ever had at one time – walked by the United Press International news wire and learned of the nomination of Sandra .O’Connor, 51, as Supreme Court justice. The old-time Democrat, a high-ranking member of the sergeant-at-arms staff who did not wish to be quoted by name, said, “I see he nominated a woman … the O’Connor girl.”-

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

Votes by Women in G.O.P. attacked

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

Political Caucus Asked to End Its Support of Legislators Who Back Budget Cuts

By ADAM CLYMER

Special To The New York Times

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., July 11 – Leading officials of the Democratic Party today challenged the National Women’s Political Caucus, one of the country’s two largest feminist political groups, to stop supporting Republican women in Congress who vote for the Reagan Administration’s budget cuts.

Polly Baca Barragan, a Colorado State Senator who is vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Democrats in the caucus that they should push for a re-evaluation of the organization’s willingness to back such Republicans. ”Even the Congresswomen who were elected with feminist support,” she said, ”had to toe the party line and vote against the economic survival of the women of this country.”

In an interview, Kathy Wilson, a Republican from Alexandria, Va., who is slated to be elected the national chairman of the caucus tomorrow, said that Senator Baca Barragan’s approach would weaken both the caucus and the ability of Republican feminists to alter their party’s policy. ”I want my party back,” she declared.

Senator Baca Barragan’s demand brought into the open a critical tension within this influential group. Among feminist political organizations, the caucus’s 55,000 members place it second only to the National Organization for Women, which has 125,000 members, and its active Washington office and roster of experienced politicians in its membership