Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

You’ve come a long way, baby, to get Reagan’s nod for the highest U.S. bench

Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

: Reflecting the thinking of most 19th-century American voters – almost all of whom were male – the supreme Court ruled in 1873 that Illinois had a perfect right to deny a lawyer’s license to a woman. ”Civil law, as well as nature lierself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of The man and woman,” Uafioft ~hree jus_ti?es held ff• m an opm1on that concurred with the majority decision by Justice Samuel Miller. “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender,” the opinion said. “The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood.” Now, 108 years and scores of lawsuits later, Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Sandra O’Connor, 51, is in line to become the first woman among the 101 people to reach the high bench. In announcing that he would nominate Judge O’Connor, President Reagan fulfilled a campaign pledge to name the first woman to the high court, and he won admiring applause from rival politicians for a masterful political stroke as well as a strong judicial choice. Although senators on both sides of the political fence, such as Arizona Democrat Dennis DeConcini and Republican Barry Goldwater, reacted favorably, Judge O’Connor

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Women on the Bench

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Proponents and opponents of the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court may debate her qualifications, but no one can dispute the symbolic significance of her appointment. Just like the “black seat'” and the “Jewish seat,” today, when O’Connor is sworn in to join the eight male justices. there will be a “woman’s seat” on the highest court in the land. As the first of her sex to hold such a position, she will be under tremendous pressure probably for as long as she sits on the court. While it would be nice to think otherwise, no one really expects there to be more than one woman on the Supreme Court for a long time. Although the concept of a woman as judge in this country has taken 200 years to become a reality at the top of the judiciary system, women have been dispensing justice in the nations courts for more than 100 years. Esther Morris, remembered by posterity as a “plain-spoken shopkeeper’s wife.” was the nation’s first female magistrate. She was appointed a justice of the peace in 1870 in Wyoming, where the year before history was also made when the territorial legislature voted in the nation’s first women’s suffrage. Things went somewhat more slowly in San Francisco. where a woman was not appointed ‘to sit on the bench until 1930. Mary Wetmore. secretary to a State Supreme Court justice. was sworn into office as a Municipal Court judge in July of that year. However, she died of appendicitis little more than a month later. Her replacement, Theresa Meikle

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Woman Tops List For Court

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Arizona Judge Has Strong Credentials, Conservative Views

Arizona Woman Heading List For Supreme Court Vacancy

Sandra D. O’Connor, a prominent Arizona jurist with Republican political credentials, has emerged as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy that will be created Friday when Justice Potter Stewart retires. Well-placed administration officials confirmed that O’Connor, who received a high ranking from the Arizona Bar Association and was third in the Stanford law school class in which Justice William H Rehnquist finished first, had been interviewed for the job. She is believed to be the only potential nominee interviewed so far, and hers is one of a few names, most of them of women, on a “short list” reposing now with a handful of 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 51-year-old judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, has enjoyed a meteoric rise through the state’s political and professional circles, impressing colleagues with her intellect, demeanor, organizational abilities and conservative views. 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 J. Rhodes.

“She’s what

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Woman Judge a Top Contender to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Sandra D. O’Connor, a 51-year-old judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, has moved into position as a top contender to fill the Supreme court vacancy, administration sources said last night. They confirmed that Judge O’Connor was on the so-called “short list” of possible nominees by President Reagan to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart and said that she was one of •a very few that had already been interviewed by the administration in the past few days. These sources declined to disclose how many names were on the “short list” and how many of those were women, but an original “long list” had about 25 possible candidates for the vacancy. Judge O’Connor wife of a Phoenix attorney, has been an active member ,of the Republican Party, and is described by party members as politi- ‘cally conservative. She served two ‘full terms in the Arizona state senate and was elected majority leader before being elected a county judge in that state in 1975I.n 1972s he was cochairman of the Arizona state committee in behalf of President Nixon’s re-election. While acknowledging that various prominent women have been mentioned for the vacancy in keeping with a campaign promise by Reagan that he would name a woman to the high court, a well-placed administration source indicated last night that Judge O’Connor was more than just one of those many names. She has emerged as one of the very leading candidates for the post, he said. There was no indication how many more potential

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Witness History in the Making

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

For the first time in the history of our country, the president has nominated a woman to the nation’s highest judiciary office. The office: ! / Supreme Court justice. The woman: Arizona’s Judge Sandra O’Connor. Prior to Senate confirmation, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct three days of hearings beginning Sept. 9. KAET-Channel 8 will chart the course of these landmark hearings with broadcasts taped live and aired at 7 p.m. Sept. 9, 10 and 11. During the hearings, we will hear testimonies from witnesses for and against the nomination, and Judge O’Connor’s responses to questions submitted by the 17-man Judiciary Committee. The questioning is expected to include a probe into Judge O’Connor’s past judicial decisions, any conflicts of interest and her views on the abortion issue. As a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals and former Republican leader of the Arizona Senate, Judge O’Connor’s nomination holds special significance to Arizonans. The Phoenix Gazette recognizes the importance of these events, not only for Arizona, but also for the entire nation. We are proud to sponsor this historic broadcast in conjunction with the Maricopa County Bar Association.

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Why the O’Connor blitz? Read on…

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

As you can see at a glance, this is pretty much a Sandra O’Connor page today . But hold it! Don’t be too hasty in turning away on grounds that you’ve read and heard enough about Judge O’Connor awreddy. It is true that we have used a lot of copy in the Tucson Citizen lately concerning President Reagan’s nomination of Arizona’s Sandra D. O’Connor to become the first woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. It is a big story, an event of some historical significance, and we’ve covered it as such. We don’t intend to chase you away with a constant barrage of O’Connor, but we feel that the information and comment o~ his page today is somewhat special in that it is the best of the best, culled from an awesome flood of copy as the world’s columnists jumped on the O’Connor theme. There is our “lede” story by Chris Collins of the Citizen’s Washingto~ Bureau , Gannett News Service. Ms. Collins is a former Citizen reporter who returned to home base long enough to find out what makes makes Mrs. O’Connor tick as a judge, a woman, a mother, a warm, breathing human being who can sit steely-eyed and humorless on the bench, then cry later over the effect of her decision. You might be interested to learn that this remarkable Phoenix jurist is a well-to-do country club woman who can strike a tennis ball or golf ball with great precision or cook a gourmet meal. Or that she will pay less than she can afford for a dress, then show it to her husband for his approval. Then there is the sober, well-reasoned

Interview

“Where Are They Now? First Female Justice Sandra Day O’Connor”

Interview / By

Sandra Day O’Connor

First female justice still judging, lecturing and writing

by Susannah A. Nesmith, AARP Bulletin, July 1, 2010

By some measures, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is working harder than she did when she was on the nation’s highest court. The law allows retired justices to continue working as judges on lower federal courts, and O’Connor has enthusiastically thrown herself into that. She travels around the country, filling in when appellate judges are on vacation or seats are vacant.

“Over the last 12 months, I have sat on more cases, heard more cases and written more opinions than I would have as an active justice on the Supreme Court,” she said during an interview with the AARP Bulletin. “It is more than a full-time job to sit on those courts.”

O’Connor, who was nominated to the high court 29 years ago this week, said her calendar is completely booked for the next two years. In addition to her court work, she accepts speaking engagements around the country to press for her two favorite causes: civic education and merit selection for judges. Last year, she also came out with her second children’s book, Finding Susie, a semi-autobiographical tale about a little girl living on a ranch and searching for the perfect pet. And she was on the Alzheimer’s Study Group, a blue-ribbon panel co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Sen. Bob Kerrey.

She testified before the Senate last year on Alzheimer’s disease, which struck her

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Up Front

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

So much euphoria reigns over the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor for a Supreme Court apP01!1tment t~at maybe nobody will notice much if an old sourpuss slips a mite of cynicism into the goingson, just for the heck of it. The thing is that the politics of deception – another term for the end justifying the means – doesn’t go down easily unless greased with cynicism. Ideally, too, it should be a first-class grade of cynicism – the kind that’ll provide a slippery coat for whatever it is we’re bent on swallowing, so that, once it’s down, we won’t even know the cynicism was there in the first place. Now that’s good cynicism. It has utility. I’ve a hunch that Judge O’Connor may be the best Supreme Court appointment in the past couple of dec- ades. But doesn’ t it mean anything at all that President Reagan – when he. was candida~e Reagan – promised – promised! – the antiabortion folks he would not name to the highest court in the land anyone whose views on abortion countered theirs? He sought out the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee and, in return for that support, pledged Carolyn Gerster, co-founder in Phoenix of that organization, that he would not name a pro-abortionist to the high court. So she says anyway. Maybe there’ll be a denial. But she fills in her story with some rather vivid detail, including the claim that, to turn the tide of support last summer in Iowa that was building among Republicans for George Bush, Reagan told her, “It will mean a lot

Law review article

The Rugged Feminism of Sandra Day O’Connor

Law review article / By

THE RUGGED FEMINISM OF SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

JUDITH OLANS BROWN° WENDYE. PARMET0 MARYE. O’ CONNELL0 0

“Is she or isn’t she?” Since Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1981, scholars have been unable to resist debating the existence and/or extent of her feminist credentials.• Although lively at times, ultimately this discussion is sterile. Focusing on whether Justice O’Connor is a “true” feminist inevitably overemphasizes a particular delineation of feminist orthodoxy2 and neglects the nature of her contributions to issues that matter to women.3 In our view the more significant question is the one less often asked: What does Sandra Day O’Connor do when issues that affect the lives of women come before her? Does her gender inform her approach to what Professor

Professor Emerita, Northeastern University School of Law. A.B., 1962, Mt. Holyoke College; LL.B., 1965, Boston College Law School. We thank our colleagues, Jane Scarborough • and Jonathan Lipson, for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this Article. We are also grateful for the efficient and effective help of librarian Kim Dulin and the excellent research assistance of students Brigitte Amiri, Aliza Kaplan, and Stephanie Wingfield of Northeastern University School of Law.

•• Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law. A.B., 1979, Cornell University; J.D., 1982, Harvard Law School.

••• Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law. B.A., 1970, Brandeis University; J.D.,

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Theo Lippman Jr.: Court seating is complicated

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

BALTIMORE -Geography is destiny, as Freud said, or was that Rand & McNally? Anyway, everybody’s paying a lot of attention to the fact that President Reagan has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court and overlooking the fact that he has nominated an Arizonan, which is also significant. If she is confirmed, Sandra O’Connor will be only the eighth justice from west of the 100th meridian, which is where the West begins. Two of the others are still on the court – Rehnquist of Arizona and White of Colorado – so the contemporary court is a third Western, for the first time. Geography was an important criteria in selecting the early justices. George Washington picked half from the North and half from the South. From 1789 till 1932 there was a “New England seat.” There was a “New York seat” from 1806 till 1890. There was a “Maryland-Virginia seat” from 1789 until lhe Civil War. In this century, geography has been less honored. There have been some extreme imbalances. On the famous “nine old men” court that President Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked in 1937, three of the nine justices had been New York City lawyers, a fourth was from Massachusetts, a fifth from Pennsylvania. The Nine Old Men were 61, 64, 66, 70, 74, 74, 75, 77 and 80. Within a year after FDR’s attack on them, four had retired and one died. Today’s eight justices are 56, 60, 64, 72, 73, 73, 73 and 75. Ronald Reagan may get to name two or three more justices. The person second on the list O’Connor was first on was J . Clifford