Law review article

Justice O’Connor and the Equal Protection Clause: A Feminine Voice?

Law review article / By

Justice O’Connor

and the equal protection clause: a feminine voice?

An analysis of O’Connor’s votes

on equal protection issues failed to find

a unique pattern, contributing to a growing body of literature that suggests there are few

consistent differences between men and women judges.

I

by Jilda M. Aliotta

t seems intuitively obvious that gender identity influences judges’ decisions, and this com mon-sense expectation is not

without theoretical support. Scholars of judicial behavior argue that judges’ social attributes are correlated with their decisional propensities. 1 Ac cording to this theory, social attributes like religion, place of rearing, and prestige of education reflect experi ences that have long-lasting effects on attitudes, values, and world views. 2 Gender certainly appears to qualify as one such attribute.

Although differences in socializa tion between male and female judges can be expected to be less pronounced than between men and women gener

household responsibility.4 Feminist legal theorists have

also argued that women judges will speak with a “different voice.” 5 Several of these theo rists find their inspiration in the work of psychologist Carol Gilli gan, who argues that women’s styles of reasoning and ap proaches to problem solving differ from those of men. 6 Ac cording to Gilligan, while men tend to view the world atomistically and to search for abstract principles to resolve moral problems, women are more likely to see the world as

interconnected

Law review article

Justice O’Connor and Federalism

Law review article / By

Justice O’Connor and Federalism

Erwin Chemerinsky•

I. INTRODUCTION

This is now, without question, the Sandra Day O’Connor Court. Out of tradition and deference to the Chief, it is commonly referred to as the Rehnquist Court. But let there be no mistake: for now, a single Justice, O’Connor, is in control. In virtually every area of constitutional law, her key fifth vote determines what will be the majority’s position and what will be the dissent. Lawyers who argue and write briefs to the Court know that often they are, for all practical purposes, arguing to an audience of one.

Statistics confirm this. Last October Term 1999, the Supreme Court decided 73 cases. Justice O’Connor was in dissent only four times. In contrast, Justice John Paul Stevens dissented twenty-eight times, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in the minority twenty-three times. Among conservatives, Justice Scalia dissented fifteen times and Justice Thomas twelve times. Nor is this a one-Term phenomenon. The year before, Justice O’Connor was in the majority in sixty-seven to seventy-five cases decided.

Perhaps even more significantly, Justice O’Connor was in the majority in virtually all of the 5-4 decisions. Last October Term 1999, twenty-one of the seventy-three cases were resolved by 5-4 margins. Justice O’Connor was in the majority in nineteen of those decisions, the most of any Justice on the Court.

Perhaps most notably, Justice O’Connor is the crucial fifth vote in cases concerning federalism. As

Magazine article

Judging Sandra

Magazine article / By

Judging Sandra

Looking back on a U.S. Supreme Court justice whose ethos uncannily matches that of the 1950s sitcom mom

By Dahlia Lithwick

AS I WRITE, JOHN ROBERTS’S confirmation hearings have begun, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor remains on the bench, awaiting the nomination of her successor. But imagining her departure, I feel like Dorothy did when she said good-bye to the Scarecrow–that I’ll miss her most of all.

It’s not just an appreciation for her tart questions at oral argument; or the fumbling of attorney who didn’t like such direct questions; or her final, inevitable tense refrain: “Answer the question, counsel.”

No, what I’ll miss most about Sandra Day is something larger and more ephemeral. I’ll miss a whole era I never even knew.

The new hit television show Desperate Housewives has spawned a revival of interest in fifties and sixties stay-at-home TV moms, their values, and their priorities–even though this is an era my generation is too young to remember. Gleaming countertops and the explosive underbelly of the PTA may sound trivial and dated, especially to lawyers. But to me, Justice O’Connor has been an ambassador of that time. Perhaps it’s not politically correct to say so, but her values and jurisprudence represent an era that’s probably lost forever.

Think for a moment about the archetypal TV mom of the 1950s and 1960s. Beyond the fact that she possessed hair that never moved (and in five years I have never seen O’Connor’s budge), what were the identifying

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Judge O’Connor wins Senate panel support

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON-The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17 to O Tuesday to support confirmation of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, virtually guaranteeing smooth passage through the full Senate for President Reagan’s first Supreme Court appointment. The vote may represent a turning toint in the politics of abortion: Not one of four antiabortion New Right senators on the committee voted against Judge O’Connor despite the continued opposition to the nomination by the antiabortion movement. One of the four, Sen. Jeremiah Denton, R-Ala., abstained. The vote also represented a tribute to Reagan’s strength. Two of the antiabortion senators, John P. East, R-N.C., and Charles E. Grassley, RIowa, said they still had questions about Judge O’Connor’s stand on abortion but were swayed in part by loyalty to the President. Judge O’Connor’s name is expected to go Friday to the Senate floor, where an equally overwhelming vote for confirmation is expected. Her swearing-in is scheduled for Sept. 25. Tuesday’s committee’s action was never in doubt, but the degree of unanimity was. East, Grassley, and Denton, who have built their reputations on opposition to abortion, complained repeatedly during the confirmation hearings about Judge O’Connor’s unwillingness to be specific on how she viewed the Supreme Court’s 1973 legalization of abortion. They repeated those complaints Tuesday, but East and Grassley then voted for her and Denton responded “present” when his name was called. Grassley said he was convinced by

Magazine article

Journey to the Center of the Bench

Magazine article / By

When President Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 to be the first woman on the Supreme Court, replacing Potter Stewart, she was known as a traditional conservative in her adopted home state of Arizona and was championed for the job by that state’s Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater. As the court moved to the right over the past two decades, O’Connor was seen more as a moderate influence, and she often provided the deciding vote in 5-4 majorities, straddling the line between the conservative and liberal wings on the bench.

During 24 terms on the court, O’Connor has consistently shown sensitivity to public opinion and political conditions, and a preference for narrow, one-step-at-a-time judicial decision-making. But since the last court vacancy, in 1994, she more than any other justice has been responsible for unraveling Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s conservative majorities.

In 1992, she joined with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter in writing the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision that, in essence, upheld the constitutional right to abortion.

More recently, she joined with liberal Justice John Paul Stevens in upholding the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law and fashioned the main opinion requiring some form of courtlike hearings for U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants in the war on terror.

In 2003, she made her first vote to uphold a racial preference, in a 5-4 decision backing the affirmative-action policies of the University of Michigan

Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

If roles were reversed

Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Judging from her performance during the Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Sandra Day O’Connor – about to become Justice O’Connor – will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court not only the valuable perspective of a woman, but a brilliant scholar with remarkable recall. During the questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge O’Connor rather routinely cited pertinent cases, reviewed legal arguments and the court’s conclusions, then offered cautious discussions of her viewpoints, careful always not to compromise her Supreme Court duties by prejudicial disclosures that would disqualify her from considering matters before the court. Members of the committee have had ample time to research their questions – although some member s seemed more interested in making points for the tele vision audience than in probing the nominee’s qualifications – but Judge O’Connor had to respond spontaneously, based on necessarily limited preparation for anticipated questions. By her thorough and analytical re- sponse to questions ran ging from profound to pathetic, Judge O’Connor offered some indication that she may come to be regarded as one of the court’s better justices, in addition to the inevitable distinction of being the first woman on the court. An amusing thought occurs. One wonders if the hearings would have lasted much beyond the ceremonial beginnings if Judge O’Connor had been asking the questions instead of answering them. Moreover, not many members of the committee would have

Interview

Hugh Hallman oral history

Interview / By

O’Connor House How did you become involved with O’Connor House? Hugh Hallman The story of how this house ended up in Papago Park in Tempe really is the story of independent and simultaneous creation. We see it in in science, now, in the last number of decades. But that’s what happened here. This serendipity, to me, demonstrated that this had to happen.

And it started for me when I received a phone call from a woman named Barbara Malone. She was a director on the board of directors of the Rio Salado Foundation. And she had been tasked by the board to go seek financial assistance for our work in historic preservation from Barbara and Craig Barrett. She called me having met with Barbara Barrett and said, “Mayor, I have a problem.” I said, “What’s the problem?” She said, “I need help moving an adobe house. And I need some place to put it.” I said, “Barbara, you were supposed to help us get financial resources for Historic Preservation, not add more to my list of tasks.” And she laughed and said, “Well, here, here’s what it is. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has a home that she and her husband built in Paradise Valley, and it’s about to be torn down. And Arizona should be embarrassed if we don’t save this. Here’s the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who led a life, an exemplary life of leadership. How could we let this happen?” And I said, “Got it. But I’ll tell you, moving an adobe house is a very big problem. I only know one person who’s ever

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Grilling has nominee looking like a winner

Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON (AP) – After one day of parrying with generally friendly and consistently courteous Senate inquisitors, Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor has the look of a winner.

At her first day of confirmation hearings yesterday, several senators tried to draw her into a discussion on her views on such explosive social issues and weighty legal problems as abortion, busing, the death penalty, Supreme Court jurisdiction, citizen access to the federal courts and the rule barring the use of evidence obtained illegally. They usually failed. Mrs. O’Connor, the first woman nominated for the nation’s highest court, did say that she personally is opposed to abortion. That was something less than condemnation of the so-called pro-choice argument, and she otherwise escaped controversy by repeatedly stating that substantive responses would be improper. The Senate Judiciary Committee and crowd of onlookers jamming the Senate hearing room thus obtained little insight about what to expect from Mrs. O’Connor during her anticipated lifetime Supreme Court membership. They did find out that Mrs. O’Connor can sit for long periods of time. When asked late Wednesday if she desired a short break in the questioning, she opted to forge ahead. They also found out she did her homework. When Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, quizzed her about a recent Supreme Court ruling, Mrs. O’Connor had to correct him. The ruling, she pointed out correctly, dealt with the need to notify parents of certain young girls

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Gavel to Gavel coverage

Newspaper mention, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

Gavel to gavel coverage of Sandra O ‘ Conno r Senate confirmation hearings will be recorded live on tape and re -broad casted on KAET/Channel 8, Septembe r 9, 10, and 11 beginning at 7 p.m. KAET, the public television affiliate in Phoenix, is producing the coverage on an exclusive basis for the . Arizona market and will also transmit the program via the Westar I satellite to all public television stations and their affiliated cable channe ls. The

Interview, Radio appearance

Former Clerks Remember O’Connor

Interview, Radio appearance / By

JENNIFER LUDDEN, host:

The relationship between a justice and her clerks is usually intense, even intimate. Supreme Court clerks do research, draft opinions and serve as legal sounding boards for the justices. Over the course of Justice O’Connor’s 24 terms on the high court, she had nearly 90 clerks. We turn now to two of them. Patricia Bellia clerked during the 1996-’97 term and is now a professor at the University of Notre Dame. She joins us from Indiana.

Hi, Ms. Bellia.

Professor PATRICIA BELLIA (University of Notre Dame): Hi.

LUDDEN: And Ronnell Anderson Jones completed her clerkship just one year ago and is now a visiting professor at the University of Arizona. She joins us from Tucson.

Welcome, Ms. Jones.

Professor RONNELL ANDERSON JONES (University of Arizona): Hi. Thanks for having me.

LUDDEN: Ms. Jones, which do you think were her most important opinions?

Prof. JONES: Oh, gosh, you know, I think that Justice O’Connor would be really disappointed to have me point to any particular opinion as her most important. And one of the things that I most valued about her as an employer and as a person is that she took seriously every single case that came before that court. There were no small cases to her. Cases that didn’t get any media coverage and that really involved only a handful of people in a place that no one ever heard of mattered to her and she gave her full weight and her full attention to deciding them. And I think that she would hope to be remembered as a