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

Rather an Unknown: Nominee’s effect on Court is difficult to determine from her past rulings

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

WASHINGTON, July 7 – Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinions in her 18 months as an Arizona appeals court judge display careful reasoning and use of precedent. But they shed little light on her attitude toward most of the controversial constitutional issues she will face if she is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge O’Connor, a former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, is widely regarded as conservative in her political outlook. Her legislative record has been attacked by anti-abortion groups that say she cast pro-abortion votes before she became a judge, but those assertions have been disputed by people who sat with her in the Arizona Legislature.

A review of Judge O’Connor’s 29 published opinions for the Arizona Court of Appeals disclosed none dealing with abortion. Nor did any of the opinions disclose her views on most of the other controversial issues that the Supreme Court has ruled on, such as busing as a means of desegregating schools, prayer in schools, the death penalty, affirmative action and the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.

The White House indicated tonight that Judge O’Connor was a supporter of the death penalty. Michael K. Deaver, the President’s deputy chief of staff, said that Judge O’Connor had been the author of an Arizona law providing for the death penalty and had sentenced at least one person under the law. However, no one has been executed in Arizona since she first became a Superior Court judge there

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Rancher reflects on early years of girl who became a judge

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

Father says he thinks ‘Sandra would make a good’ justice

DUNCAN – Harry Day was surrounded by shadows in his office on the Lazy B Ranch. “I’m Harry Day, and I’m busy,” he said, as he continued worming through his checkbook. Last week, Harry’s eldest daughter, Sandra Day O’Connor, was the first woman nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Day was not unimpressed but just now he had a $6.15 discrepancy in his checking account, and the big question was whether to fiddle with that amount or let it ride. leaning on his cane, he emerged from the office into a bright and modestly furnished living room. “Six dollars and fifteen cents,” he snarled. “Ain’t worth the trouble.” Henry A. Day, 83, whom everyone calls Harry, really did want to talk about his 51-year-old daughter.

…

Like many others who grew up in the rural West, Sandra O’Connor’s formative years were molded more by a relationship with the land and the elements rather than close friends. When one lives on one of the planet’s bare spots, 60 miles east of Safford, and roughly 20 miles west of Lordsburg, N.M., one doesn’t live near anyone. Acquaintances are, for the most part, imported.

The Days confirmed that Sandra really didn’t have any close friends in nearby Franklin or Duncan, other than a couple of eccentric cowboys – Bug Quinn and Claude Tippets – who live together near Franklin. Alan Day, Sandra’s 41-year-old brother, advised…

[Photo caption: Harry Day, 83, remembers when he taught daughter Sandra

Arizona Republic, Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Leader of Moral Majority to decide after hearings: Falwell reserves judgment on Supreme Court Nominee

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

LYNCHBURG, Va. – The Rev. Jerry Falwell said Friday that he probably will wait until after Senate conf’mnation hearings before decid- ing whether to support or oppose Judge Sandra O’Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But Falwell, leader of the Moral Mtajority, a conservative lobbying group, said he still hopes for a Reagan-appointed court that will reverse a 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Falwell had planned to decide his position on the nomination of Judge O’Connor after conAulting Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N._C., a Moral Majority ally who met With Judge O’Connor on Thursday evening. However, Helms declined to take a position on her nomination, saying one 40-minute meeting was not enough to make a decision. Falwell, after talking with Helms’ aides, also remained uncommitted. “We are not opposing Judge O’Connor’s nomination ” Falwell said. “We are not supporting Judge O’Connor’s nomination. We will wait until all the facts are in and probably the hearings are conducted.” The Senate Judiciary Committee probably will conduct its confirmation hearings in September.

Chicago Tribune, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Quick approval seen for court’s first woman: President Praised on Nomination

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

WASHINGTON – Ending almost two centuries of tradition, President Reagan announced Tuesday that he is nominating the first woman to the United States Supreme Court – Arizona jurist Sandra D. O’Connor. Mrs. O’Connor, 51, a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals who has received a highly favorable rating from the state bar association, was named to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart. The President, making the historic announcement in the White House briefing room, called Mrs. O’Connor “truly a person for all seasons” and urged her swift confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled hearings on Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. Capitol Hill sources said Tuesday that she would encounter little difficulty getting confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate despite opposition from the anti-abortion movement MAJORITY LEADER. Howard Baker (R, tenn.) pledged to head the Senate effort backing Mrs O’Connor’s confirmation. “I commend the President for the courage of his decision to name a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Baker said. Reagan’s nomination of Mrs. O’Connor was immediately challenged by the antiabortion lobby because she had supported less restrictive abortion laws. DR. JOHN C. WILLKE of Cincinnati, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said: “The entire pro-life movement will oppose her confirmation.” Reagan, however, told reporters Tuesday that

Letter to the editor, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Questions O’Connor

Letter to the editor, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

There are several questions which beg answers for many folk across this nation. Questions that needed to be raised in order to let the Judiciary Committee know that many of us are concerned about the two areas which Mrs. O’Connor refused to answer because they were “substantive” issues not to be discussed. THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC On the question of abortion, the fact is that Mrs. O’Connor has actively supported legislation . on abortion. One can explain away her vote on the rider of the university bill but not her “aye,, vote in committee and again in caucus for an unlimited abortion-on-demand bill. Again, she voted “no” on a Memorial to Congress to extend protections to unborn babies by prohibiting abortion. She also cosponsored a Family Planning Act which provided for medical procedures, information and contraceptives for anyone regardless of sex, race, age, etc. Physicians could furnish these services to minors without the consent of parents or guardians. The issue becomes even broader – it involves parent.s’ right.s and responsibilities. It has been reported that Mrs. O’Connor changed her mind on the Equal Right.s Amendment after she introduced it by special permission to the Senate. That was not Mrs. O’Connor but Bess Stinson and myself. Mrs. O’Connor continued to support it throughout her term in office and there is nothing to indicate a reversal of her support. When the Judiciary Committee meet.s, I’m sure the “substantive” questions will be answered. AB someone said; “It

Lake Havasu Herald, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Questioning Mrs. O’Connor

Lake Havasu Herald, Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Usually, in this trade, there is somebody at the other end of the telephone who can give you the answer to any question save possibly what the Aztecs were trying to say on their calendar stone. The morning paper even reveals that Shy Di’s uncle, or somebody serving the dynastic concerns of Great Britain, acknowledged that a discreet examination established that she could bear a successor to the throne. As the people in Silicon Valley are fond of saying, “It’s all a problem of software In hardNare, there are no more problems,” Well, I’m still in search of a definite body of knowledge on the question: What exactly can you legitimately ask someone who has been named to the Supreme Court? There are apparenily no hard rules. Such as there are depend for their effect on plausibility. For instance: • Sen. Jones: Mrs. O’Connor, if the Human Life bill is passed into law and its constitutionality is challenged before the court. how would you vote? Mrs. O’Connor: Senator. I don’t think it proper to say how I would vote on a pending matter. For one thing, I would want to study the briefs. hear the oral argum ents and perhaps even ask a question of my own. J : Does that mean that you can 1, make up your mind on the question whether the Congress of the United States has the constitutional right, to cll•dare at what point a biological organism becomes entith •d to the protPciion of the 14th …

Business Week, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Put wisdom above bias

Business Week, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

The savage attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor by right-wing groups reveal a dangerously distorted idea of how the U. S. government should work. In this country, Congress enacts the legislation; the courts determine its conformity with the organic law of the land, the Constitution, and define its application to specific cases. The fact that groups such as the Moral Majority and the National Right to Life Committee supported President Reagan in the last electi0n gives them no right to have a representative on the Supreme Court or any other branch of the judiciary. When the Senate holds hearings on confirmation of the O’Connor appointment, it should review her record as a lawyer, state legislator, and appeals court judge in Arizona . It should not try to extract a commitment about how she will vote in cases involving abortion, the issue that her critics consider crucial. And it should ignore the demands of lobbyists who want it to demonstrate to President Reagan that “his next court appointment had better be pro-life.” Abortion is only one of the many controversial issues the Supreme Court will have to consider in the years ahead. Vacancies on the court should be filled with appointees who are distinguished for their wisdom and their judicial temperament, not for their blind accept – ance of the doctrines of any group. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made his reputation as a gre_at judge by defending . the right of the government – whether federal or state-to