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

SANDRA STORM! Right wing vows fight in bid to block high court nomination

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

WASHING TON – A furious storm of criticism exploded yesterday over President Reagan’s nomination of Arizona judge Sandra D. O’Connor as the first woman in history to serve on the Supreme Court. Outraged conservatives said they would move to block her confi1matio n because of her pa.c;t record of supporting abortio n and the Equal Rights Am , , 1ent. Conserv .,.t1 e groups, including the Rev. Jerry Fal- well’s Moral Majority and the Right-to-Life movement, flooded the White House with more than 5000 telegrams and phone calls protesting the state Appeals Court judge’s nomination. “This is going to be one tough fight,” Richard Viguerie, who runs one of the most sophisticated political direct-mail operations in the nation backing conservative causes, told The Post.

“We’ve been insulted and we’ve been betrayed and I’d rather take a physical beating than fight the President. But this is what we’re going to have to do,” said Viguerie, who has raised tens of millions of dollars.

“President Reagan’s nomination is a mistake. Either the President did not have sufficient information about her background in the area of social issues or chose to ignore that information,” Falwell said.

“Her record indicates she is not an opponent of abortion on demand and is opposed to attempts to curb this biological holocaust which has taken the lives of more than 10 million innocent babies since 1973.”

Reagan named O’Connor yesterday to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by retired Justice Potter

Newspaper article, Stanford Alumni Almanac, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra Reaches the Top

Newspaper article, Stanford Alumni Almanac, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

I t’s a superb appointment. Marvelous for the country, for Stanford, and for the Law School.” So reacted Law School dean Charles Meyers to the announcement that President Ronald Reagan had nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, ’51, LLB ’52. as the nation’s first woman Supreme Court justice . He added : “She’s a woman of great abilit y, tremendous balance, and a good political understand ing.” Meyers was not alone in his praise of the appointment of the 51-year-o ld Arizona jurist who seems certain to join law classmate William Rehnquist, ’48, LLB ’52. on the nation’s highest court. Teachers and classmates from both her undergraduate and law school days and faculty members and administrators who had come to know her during her later years of service on the Stanford Board of Trustees were almost unanimous in their approval. Sallyanne Payton, ’64. LLB ’68, an associate professor of law at the University of Michigan who served as a Stanfo rd Trustee with O’Connor, described her as having “a fine legal mind ” and “exceptionally good judgment.” She added: “She’s a smart, hardworking, judicious, warm, generous, unpretentious person. We were on opposite sides on some issues, but I thought she was careful and honest and at all times had the best interests of the institution at heart.” So convinced of her qualifications were those in the administration screening potential nominees that she was the only candidate to be personally interviewed by the President. In picking the Texas-born Arizona

Arizona Republic, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra O’Connor Undeserving of Malicious Criticism

Arizona Republic, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

The Rev. Jerry Falwell leaves the uneasy impression that he believes the center of the ethical and intellectual universe rests between hia two ears. He – as well as others of the Moral Majority who have collapsed into uncontrolled hysteria over the nomination of Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court – has said asmuch. The unctuous Falwellian belief rests on the proposition that there is but a single correct and infallible litmus test for anyone nominated to the Supreme Court. And that test is whether Sandra O’Connor in fact, or in appearance, fits the philosophical mold fashioned by Falwellians. Judge O’Connor obviously does not fit their test. So she now will suffer righteous Hell as she heads for confirmation in the U.S. Senate as the nation’s first woman justice on the high court . The Rev. Falwell has acquired handsome personal rewards and built a powerful national political base while moralizing from his pulpit. But he reflects the troubling narrowness of selfish one-issue politics that has become a plague. Increasingly, we are asked to judge a candidate or an issue on how they benefit or deprive a single interest group. Pensioners cry out against any Social Security reform because they may have to sacrifice, although the fund is bankrupt and the increased tu load on workers is becoming unbearable. Organized labor denounces candidates and legislation that do not meet labor’s demands. Blacks look for pro-black candi- dates and pro-black laws. Hispanics ditto. Indians

Arizona Republic, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra O’Connor’s Mettle and Character Never Failed

Arizona Republic, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Even from this distance, and thus .far removed from the pressures of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing room, it’s obvious that Sandra Day .. -O’Connor has left a deep, perhaps l even an historic, impression on the • nation. True, there is a certain hometown bias in judging Judge O’Connor’s performance before the udiciary Committee, which must decide whether to recommend her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. But even taking hometown pride into account, Sandra O’Connor’s conduct for two days in the witness chair in that packed room, and in the face of hostile questions, will long be remembered by millions who watched and heard her on television and radio. I once spent less than 10 minutes testifying before the House Interior Committee in Washington on behalf of a civic project in which I was engaged in Florida in the early 1970s. And I can tell you those 10 minutes were gruelling. There were distractions of comingand-going congressmen, whispered asides at the committee table, and questions from a few members of the panel that clearly were designed to state a position rather than elicit information. That was tame, however, compared to the hours and hours spent by Judge O’Connor fielding questions while cameras clicked, and a nation focused attention on this Arizonan seized in a moment of history. What struck me, as it did nearly everyone I’ve heard discussing the O’Connor testimony, were two things. First, the personal poise and dignity she retained throughout,

Chicago Tribune, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra O’Connor praised as politician, judge

Chicago Tribune, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

SINCE her graduation from law school at the age of 22, Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated Tuesday to . the U.S. Supreme Court, has made her mark both as a judge and as a Republican politician in Arizona Mrs. O’Connor, 51, is a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was born in 1930, in El Paso, Tex., but she grew up on a cattle ranch in southern Arizona and claims that as her native state. She received a bachelor’s degree in economics with “great distinction” from Stanford University in 1950. She earned her law degree two years later, also from Stanford and also with honors . She ranked third in her law class; the person who ranked No. 1 was fellow Westerner William Rehnquist, who has been on the Supreme Court since 1972. Another classmate was Frank X. Gordon, now an Arizona Supreme Court justice. “‘SHE’S EXCEPTIONALLY well qualified, with a tremendous background in politics,” Gordon said after learning of her nomination. She was married to a classmate, John O’Connor, and remained in CaHfornia while he finished law school. She worked for a time as an assistant district attorney in San Mateo County. She joined the Arizona bar in 1957, practiced briefly in Maryvale, Ariz., and was an assistant attorney general from 1965 to 1969. , In 1969, she was appointed to the state senate and subsequently was elected to two terms as a Republican. She was elected majority leader, the first woman to win such a powerful state position. She received 75 per cent of the vote, more than any other

Arizona Business Gazette, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra O’Connor: ‘A person for all seasons’. High court nomination makes history

Arizona Business Gazette, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

“I am extremely happy and honored to have been nominated by President Reagan for a position on the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, I will do my best to serve the Court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the President, to my family and to all the people of this great nation.” -Sandra O’Connor Rumor and sketchy reports had already traveled from Washington to Phoenix. Electricity and excitement had begun to build. Law clerks _and fellow jurists clutching legal documents and research materials joined newsmen in a first floor courtroom of Phoenix’s State Capitol building. The already-crowded room spilled with people into an adjacent hallway, the clerk’s office and outside lobby as the press conference began. Court of Appeals Judge Sandra D. O’Connor, dressed conservatively in a blue dress, walked nervously to the platform . Behind her followed her family and John Rousell, deputy press secretary for the president. O’Connor stood at the podium in front of an elevated bench bearing her name. As she read her brief prepared remarks, each word was punctuated by the strobe flashes and staccato shutter release of news cameras. Her husband, Phoenix attorney John J. O’Connor III, and their three sons accompanied her to the brief July 7 morning news conference in the Court of Appeals courtroom. The judge, who was applauded warmly upon completion of her opening remarks, said she was greatly honored to be nominated to the Supreme Court, but “never thought it would

Op ed, Phoenix Central Sun, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Sandra in Court’s Kitchen?

Op ed, Phoenix Central Sun, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

No sooner than Sandra Day O’Connor won confirmation by the Sena te than she said she plans to be ” ver y bus y, very fast ,” after she is sworn in later this week . Well, I should hope to kiss a cow. After nearly 200 years, this male bas – tion can use the services of a woman . Oh, I doubt the other eigh t Supreme Court justices will allow her to take part in any judical proceedings because , after all , she is a woman . Hut, idle hands are the Devil ‘s pla y”ma tc, and that ‘s an adage that has ~ell stood the test of time . So I would as sume that her offic e would include kitchen facilities , wher e ,’w could whip up some sn,1cks to ser ve at a cot1ee break for her deliberating eolh•..igUl’S fte r all , ju st ice travels on its stomach. as the saying goes. Justice O’Connor could also earn her money by dusting off the law books and performing other household chores around the court. And, I would strongly suggest Sandra take a course in shorthand so that she can take the minutes of the meetings , and read them back for corrections, additions, and deletions at the next meeting. Speaking of earn ing her mone y, I can only hope the y are not going to pay her as much as they do the male jus tices . A r ecent government survey showed that women , in general receive only 60 as much money as males for doing the same job. Tha t should not surpr ise an ybody, because that ‘s as it should be, and all men will dri nk to tha t. So, I propose Justice O’ Connor re cieve 60 percent of the