Law review article

Justice O’Connor, the Constitution, and the Trimester Approach to Abortion: A Liberty on a Collision Course with Itself

Law review article / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE TRIMESTER APPROACH TO ‘ABORTION: A LIBERTY ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ITSELF

RICHARD F. DUNCAN*

When the United States Supreme Court handed down its most re cent ukase on the abortion liberty in Akron v. Akron Center for Repro ductive Health, Inc.,1 I, like so many people concerned with the protec tion of the unborn, initially reacted with despair. The total victory of the abortion ideology over biological reality and human compassion appeared to be reflected in the Court’s intolerance for even the most insignificant restrictions on abortion passed by democratically elected state and local legislat ures.1 Indeed, the Akron case, which struck down a number of pro visions of a local ordinance regulating the performance of abortions in Akron, Ohio, seemed to declare the nearly absolute nature of the abortion liberty (and perhaps the ultimate extension of the culture of the “me gen eration”) when it invalidated, as impermissibly vague under the due pro cess clause of the fourteenth amendment, a provision of the ordinance requiring abortionists to “insure that the remains of the unborn child are disposed of in a humane and sanitary manner.”3 Astonishingly, not only

Associate Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law.

1 462 U.S. 416 (1983). As Professor John T. Noonan, Jr. recently observed, the abortion clinic referred to in the title of the Akron case was “named with Orwellian aptness.” Noo nan, The Root and Branch of

Law review article, Speech

We Need a Clear Set of Rules to Reaffirm Our Values as a Nation

Law review article, Speech / By

It is a great privilege and honor to be at West Point today. The beauty and history of this institution make it one of our nation’s most treasured places. To be here and receive the Thayer Award, and to review a Parade is the experience of a lifetime. The previous recipients have most often been people with substantial military experience, such as General Colin Powell, Senator Robert Dole, and General Douglas MacArthur. By comparison, I am merely a sideline observer. Even Bob Hope – who came here to receive the award in 1968 – had more military experience than I do. As a result, West Point is making a bit of an exception in presenting the award to a mere Supreme Court Justice.

I understand that the Thayer award is supposed to be given to an “outstanding citizen of the United States whose service, accomplishments, and stature exemplify personal devotion to the ideals expressed in the West Point motto, “DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY.” That is a wonderful and grand motto. I have been tested a bit lately on the “duty” front: As many of you know, I did my best to retire from the Supreme Court this summer. The President nominated Judge John Roberts to be my successor, and I assumed I might be trout fishing in Montana or seeing my grandchildren in Arizona on the first Monday of October, when the new term started. Then the nation learned of the sudden death of our Chief Justice, William Rehnquist. He served on the Supreme Court for 33 years in all and was a great Chief Justice. He was also a

Newspaper article, Speech

Stanford commencement speech, 1982: The Individual Often Does Make A Difference In Society

Newspaper article, Speech / By

Try to resolve some disputes outside the courts, O’Connor advises graduates

An informed, reasoned effort by one citizen can have a dramatic impact on how … a legislator will vote and act. -Sandra Day O’Connor

Following is the 1982 commencement address by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

First. I want to say hello to the class of 1982. You are the people who asked mo to be with you today. My presence here reflects that there are some offers that even supreme court justices can’t refuse. Yours was one of them. Thank you for asking me to share your day with you. Thank you, Don Kennedy, for your kind words and thoughts and thank you, dear friends of Stanford and of the graduates, for being here today for this wonderful celebration.

As I stand here and look about me, it is like taking a journey in a time tunnel.

I remember. so clearly, the day I first sat in this amphitheater. It was the end of September, 1946. The occasion was the first gathering of my own class, the class of 1950. While your class and mine are separated by a span of 32 years, I can assure you that our two classes share a common belie£. There is no greater, more foresighted office in this land of ours than the Admissions Office of Stanford University. Certainly, all of you would agree that if my decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court are as wise as Fred Hargadon’s admissions decisions about you in the spring of 1978, this country is entering into a judicial golden age.

Each spring. when I was

Testimony

Testimony to the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging

Testimony / By

Sandra Day O’Connor Committee. Thank you so much for having the hearing and for inviting us to share a few minutes with you this morning. I think the members of this committee are probably more knowledgeable than any of us about this disease you exhibited from your statements already a depth of knowledge and understanding about the problem that tells me you’re not going to learn anything new from us today. But Speaker Gingrich and I are both serving on this study group, which we hope within the span of a year to be able to come back with some recommendations. I’m sure that as members of the committee interested in it, you will have heard many of the recommendations already, but perhaps we can shed some further light on it, but I’m here in the position of being a caregiver. My beloved husband, john suffers from Alzheimer’s. He’s had it for a long time now. And he’s not in very good shape at present. And so I have some appreciation for the depth of feeling that you have that’s generated the interest and the people who are in this room today. You magnify that by people in every state of this country, and you will understand the depth of concern that’s out there. This is a really difficult disease because it has no cure as yet. And if the work that you do by funding research in this area, and by considering the laws I congratulate you on the one you just passed, to enable people to get an early diagnosis and Not there by for but forfeit the right to get long term care insurance.

Testimony

Testimony to United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the importance of teaching civics in school

Testimony / By

Sandra Day O’Connor I think it would be instructive for young people to have a chance to do that. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I will welcome questions that you and the other senator has to direct a conversation. You brought up the subject of iCivics. It is a website that relies on games to teach young people how government works. We have a wonderful group of skilled teachers of middle and high school levels who have helped advise us on the topics that we should cover on the next iCivics game and so forth. They have helped us in developing the website. We have attempted to develop games that enhance the ability and teachers to teach young people how our government works. I went to school and a long time ago. I went to school in el paso, texas. My parents lived in a ranch that was too remote for school. I lived with my grandparents during the school term in el paso and went to school there. I remember having a lot of civics class is based on texas history. I got pretty sick and tired of it. I thought it was miserable. I hope today’s civics teachers will be able to make it more interesting than I found it in those days. That is one of the reasons for developing the iCivics site a series of games that young people can play. This system has worked very effectively. Recently in texas, there has to do a study of iCivics through the education department to see the text of this to see if it is effective the students. The study produced exceedingly encouraging results. I was thrilled to

Interview, Magazine article

“Sandra Day O’Connor Interviews John Paul Stevens”

Interview, Magazine article / By

O’Connor: Do you think that over the years you were here, your approach to cases changed at all? Or your view of the law? Did you see changes in your own reaction to the law in the cases we heard? Stevens: Well, yes, because it is a learning experience. I think nobody knows all the answers when he or she joins the court. You gradually learn about different areas of the law. And you learn through the briefs and arguments of your associates. So it’s a continuing learning experience. It’s a lot of fun … one of the most interesting things anyone can do.

O’Connor: I feel the same way about it. Much is done at the time a new justice is nominated to try to see what the justice is going to do. But in fact, is it your experience that the nominee himself or herself doesn’t know what they’re going to do? Stevens: Absolutely, absolutely.

O’Connor: The nominee hasn’t addressed all those issues. Stevens: You haven’t read the briefs. All sorts of questions may come out differently after you study [them]. No, I think it is a terrible mistake in the confirmations to expect the nominee to know all the answers, because you just don’t know them at the time.

O’Connor: During your years on the court, according to the press, some thought that you drifted “to the left,” whatever that means. Have you read that about your jurisprudence? Stevens: I’ve read that over and over again, and the only thing I would say about that is, I’ve been asked this a lot and thought about it a lot, and, with one exception,

Interview, Magazine article

“Life’s Work: An Interview with Sandra Day O’Connor”

Interview, Magazine article / By

Sandra Day O’Connor graduated from Stanford Law School in 1952 but had trouble finding work as a lawyer because, at the time, firms would hire only men. She went on to become the first female majority leader of a U.S. state senate and the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as a centrist, a consensus builder, and a “mother hen” to her staff, she now leads iCivics, a platform for teaching kids about government.

You grew up on a ranch that straddled Arizona and New Mexico—a long way from Washington, DC, and the Supreme Court. How did that upbringing influence you?

Growing up on a ranch, you’re assigned certain tasks, and you’d darned well better do them and do them right. Everyone was expected to help and to do their best. I’ll tell you a little story. Once, when I was a teenager, the workers were rounding up the cattle in an area very far from the ranch headquarters. We had to get lunch to them, and the roundup cook for some reason wasn’t going to be there. So I got up extremely early, my mother and I fixed the lunch, and I got in a pickup truck alone to drive to the place where they were. I was going along, when all of a sudden I got a flat tire. So I stopped the truck and got out. I knew how to jack a car up—I’d seen it done—so I found the jack and did that. I worked so hard. Then I got the flat tire off and the spare tire on, put the lug bolts in tight, and got everything working again. But it took me a long time. By the time I got to the men, it was several hours

Interview

Interview at National Portrait Gallery

Interview / By

Sandra Day O’Connor
I wanted since I was the first not to be the last, and I wanted to do the job well, so would provide encouragement for women to serve in the future.

Unknown Speaker
When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to serve on the US Supreme Court, she had traveled a long road from the cattle ranch in the southwest where she was raised last major gender discrimination roadblocks in the beginning of her legal career.

Sandra Day O’Connor
I didn’t know there was a problem out on the ranch, there certainly wasn’t a problem. So I was unaware of any gender discrimination, if you will, was not in my scope of experience at all.

Unknown Speaker
When did you first become aware?

Sandra Day O’Connor
I don’t know probably much later in life when I tried to get a job.

Unknown Speaker
Were you surprised how limited the possibilities were when you graduated from law school?

Sandra Day O’Connor
I was shocked because I did very well in law school. I was way up here. And I assumed everything would be perfect. And it wasn’t I couldn’t get a job offer. And I was shocked by that.

Unknown Speaker
After graduating from Stanford Law School when she could not get a job as a lawyer at a law firm, she finally started working as a deputy county attorney in California, so to be nominated to the top court in the country almost three decades later.

Sandra Day O’Connor
Well, it was of course, a surprise that I was and it was very demanding because I had to put forward a demeanor

Law review article, Speech

Eulogy for the Honorable Warren E. Burger Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States

Law review article, Speech / By

I met Chief Justice Burger in 1979 in Arizona. He was there to address the Conference of State Supreme Court Chief Justices. John and I then joined him, with mutual friends and his administrative assistant, Mark Cannon, for a three-day tour of Lake Powell by houseboat. He had a wonderful time on that most beautiful of lakes. There I began a friendship with, and a respect for, Warren Burger that never dimmed.

John and I learned the story of his remarkable life during that Lake Powell journey We learned of his humble origins in St. Paul, Minnesota; of his marriage to his beloved Vera, who was also from St. Paul; of his hard work in the insurance industry and his study of law at night at the William Mitchell College of Law; of his early years in the practice of law; of his volunteer work doing research and writing reports for America’s youngest governor, Harold Stassen of Minneapolis-which eventually led to his position in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice in Washington.

Little did I think in 1979 that I might one day serve as an Associate Justice and have an opportunity to know and work directly with the Chief Justice until his retirement in 1986. He was so kind and considerate to me when I arrived at the Court. From my investiture in September, 1981, when he took my arm and led me down the steps at the front of the Court to confront the battery of press, until his retirement, he was always willing to discuss the issues and the problems, and to share is common