Law review article

Professionalism: Remarks at the Dedication of the University of Oklahoma’s Law School Building and Library

Law review article / By

It is a great pleasure to be here at the University of Oklahoma to participate in the dedication of the new building and library for the College of Law. You have created a beautiful, state-of-the-art facility, equipped to meet the demands of contemporary legal education and befitting the University of Oklahoma’s excellent reputation. It is bound to inspire academic achievement, nurture interesting and valuable scholarship, and nourish a sense of community among the school’s students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

When David Boren decided to leave the U.S. Senate, John and I and people across the land were sad and disappointed. As a Senator, David Boren made great contributions to good public policy and understanding. Now that I have seen his accomplishments here at the University of Oklahoma, however, I can understand his satisfaction in seeing tangible results from his leadership and efforts. Those results are everywhere across the campus. After visiting the Reading Room and the Student Union today it made me want to be a student again and right here at this University. The Oklahoma Law Center had a direct effect on my study of the law. One of this law center’s professors in the 1930s and 1940s was Marion Rice Kirkwood. He left and went on the Stanford law faculty. He taught me real property and water law at Stanford Law School and he served as Dean of Stanford Law School for some years.

This Law Center is fortunate indeed to have Andrew Coats as Dean. He has made a real difference

Panel discussion

Panel discussion on the role of the judiciary with the American Bar Association

Panel discussion / By

Unknown Speaker Their stories of world war two Korea and Vietnam. Three members Unknown Speaker of the Supreme Court talked about the role of the judiciary at this event hosted by the American Bar Association. justices Stephen Brier, Unknown Speaker Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy spoke for just under an hour and a half. Unknown Speaker As we get in this part of the program, we’re going to vary from oral questions to written questions. So I, as you Stephen Breyer hear the Unknown Speaker presentation and you have your questions, please write them down. And then when we asked for them, you can put your hand up and we’ll pick them up. Justice Kennedy will need to leave slightly early. But and we will miss him but we will continue to there’s the normal time at this time. You already know my great co our president American Bar and he will now introduced this program. Unknown Speaker Good afternoon, everyone. Unknown Speaker We are all in for a treat Unknown Speaker during the next 90 minutes. And while we’re doing the technology here, let me offer it an observation and a question of all of you. The observation is this, I have to leave immediately after this panel to go to the airport. Because tomorrow morning at 8am, I’ll be in Seattle, Washington addressing the judiciary on the way judges are selected in the state of Washington. So I won’t have a chance to speak with you after I leave. My question to you is this after I pay respects to the people who have made this

Interview

Panel discussion on selecting judges at Aspen Ideas Festival

Interview / By

Unknown Speaker the Aspen Institute. This is about an hour 10 minutes. My name Unknown Speaker is Eric motley, and I’m here at the Aspen Institute and wanted to welcome you to yet another provocative session in our series on justice in society. couple of housekeeping points we’re filming, we’re taping this session. So if you could silence your phones and blackberries, that would be much appreciated. And the last 20 minutes of this program will be reserved for q amp a. And we’ll have stationary mics. So if you could make yourselves to those stationary mics and introduce yourselves before proceeding to ask your questions, questions, few statements, that would help us considerably. And meeting all the needs of our taping technicians by honor now is to introduce you to the moderator Sandy Levinson, who is a professor of law at the universe city of Texas. his bio is in the back of your program. He’s had a very distinguished life of letters in law. And we’re very pleased to have him to moderate this Unknown Speaker session, Sandy, not have so pleased as I am to be here. I think among the people at the Aspen Institute tied for first among the people who do not need an introduction, our former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and justice Stephen Grier, I do want to add one item of their respective biographies, though appropriate to the general theme of selecting judges because both Justice O’Connor and justice Brier have actually been selected twice. Justice O’Connor, I think

Panel discussion

Panel discussion on race and the American criminal justice system at Aspen Ideas Festival

Panel discussion / By

Sandra Day O’Connor It does a lot of things right. We’re fortunate here because we do have a very strong right to jury trial. And if you have a fairly selected jury, I think it’s a great assurance to the defendant, if the defendant decides to go to trial, that it can be heard in an appropriate manner. So you can’t, I think, criticize that too much. there been a lot of cases dealing with exclusion, for instance of African Americans from juries when there is an African American on trial. And I think the courts have dealt pretty well with that. And I’ve tried to prevent that from happening. So I think that works quite well. And that would be the major thing, but we have a decent appellate system in the United States. And criminal defendants who are convicted have an opportunity to appeal if they’re convicted, and State court through the state court system. And then they still have a right for some kind of review and the federal courts after all, that’s over. So that’s pretty impressive. If you review it comparatively with other nations, …

Sandra Day O’Connor You know, that’s, that’s important, because what’s happening nationwide and through the states initially, and then also the federal government is just start enacting mandatory minimum sentences. I used to be a trial judge in the state of Arizona. And when I had a felony case, my jurisdiction gave me the right to punish the defendant if it were a guilty verdict, with anything from probation to life imprisonment. Well, that

Speech

On the Public’s Lack of Awareness

Speech / By

Sandra Day O’Connor According to the Annenberg public policy institute that takes polls, barely one third of Americans can even name the three branches of government, much less say what they do. Now imagine that that’s incredible to me. They don’t know anything. I mean, they can mean two out of three of the Three Stooges anytime you ask. But they can’t name our justice on the US Supreme Court. I mean, it’s pathetic. It really is. And you don’t just inherit this half of our states no longer teach civics for high school graduation, it’s not a requirement, after states and more following suit. And now we have no child left behind, right? Because our students were tested along those with about 20 Western nations, who came up in at the bottom for math and science. did and what is the President will Congress do when they see a problem? You’ve got a federal money. They decided we need to give money to the schools to teach math, science and reading. That was the remedy. Well, okay, maybe that’s a good idea. OY to happen, and it wasn’t intended, was it because the schools are reimburse for teaching math, science and reading. They don’t teach civics history, and music or whatever it is. And so because they don’t get any money for it. So out they go. And we’re in a terrible state. State today with kids growing up and not knowing even as much as it takes to become a citizen of this country about how it works. To become a citizen, you have to take a path. You have to know the three branches

Law review article

On Federalism: Preserving Strong Federal and State Governments

Law review article / By

Most Americans recognize the term “federalism,” but an exact definition of the term is elusive. Disputes over the bounds of state and federal sovereignty implicate “perhaps our oldest question of constitutional law.” 1 I propose that recent decisions of the Supreme Court indicate the emergence of a definition of “federalism” that may guide legislators and judges in solving national and local problems in a spirit of cooperation.

Our country has come a long way since its most early days, when Federal power over individuals was severely constricted because the Articles of Confederation required the cooperation of state legislatures in achieving national goals. The Framers resolved that problem by permitting the Federal Government to act directly upon the people. In my view, the allowance for federal regulation of individuals and protection of their national interests, while preserving the sovereignty of States acting within their own boundaries, is crucial to our constitutional framework.

The Framers recognized the need for a strong and functional government, but, as Justice Harlan once explained, they “were suspicious of every form of all powerful central authority.”2 By establishing two levels of government, the Framers sought to guarantee both national unity and individual liberty.

The framework they designed seems so deceptively simple that the Tenth Amendment has been described as “but a truism.” 3 Nonetheless, “the task of ascertaining the constitutional line between federal

Interview, TV appearance

NBC interview with Katie Couric

Interview, TV appearance / By

Katie Couric To many, Justice O’Connor has been an icon of intellect and equality ever since she took her place on the bench more than 20 years ago. But sitting down with her I also found a humble, relaxed and at times very funny woman who readily admits to once having some mixed feelings about her place in history. Sandra Day O’Connor The phone rang and it was President Reagan. Sandra. I’d like to announce your nomination to the court tomorrow. Is that alright with you? And I didn’t know if it was it or not. Katie Couric For Sandra Day O’Connor, it was hard to believe the choice was hers. She could become perhaps the most influential woman in the country. But she wasn’t so sure she was the right person for the job. They were scared. Sandra Day O’Connor Yes, I was concerned about whether I could do the job well enough to deserve saying yes, Katie Couric a very rare and candid admission from a member of the most exclusive and reclusive club in America. The first woman on the Supreme Court is a pretty daunting title. Did you think about how important that was for women everywhere? Sandra Day O’Connor Of course, the minute I was confirmed, and on the court, states across the country started putting more women on and had ever been the case on their supreme courts. And it made a difference in the acceptance of young women as lawyers. It opened doors for them. Here we go. Okay, so Katie Couric Sandra Day O’Connor has been opening well, gently pushing doors open all her life,

Law review article

Meeting the Demand for Pro Bono Services

Law review article / By

MEETING THE DEMAND FOR PRO BONO SERVICES*

BY

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR†

While lawyers have much we can be proud of, we also have a great deal to be ashamed of in terms of how we are responding to the needs of people who can’t afford to pay for our services. On the one hand, there is probably more innovative pro bono work being done right now than at any time in our history; on the other hand, there has probably never been a wider gulf between the need for legal services and the availability of legal services. That sounds like a paradox, but if you’ll bear with me for a little while, I hope I can make you see that it isn’t.

The American Bar Foundation has estimated that nearly one quarter of all poor people each year have a civil legal problem deserving a lawyer’s attention.1 But publicly funded attorneys can handle only twelve percent of the load.2 According to the ABA, eighty percent of poor people’s civil legal needs go unmet.3 In big cities, the problem is even worse. In Los Angeles, for example, there are more than 750,000 people each year who need legal services but cannot afford them.•

These numbers are disturbing enough in themselves, but the reality behind the numbers is even more shocking. The legal needs of poor people involve the most basic necessities of life, needs like food and shelter. For example, every day many tenants are evicted from their apartments because they are unable to pay the rent. One can only imagine how often an eviction is the trigger for the homelessnes

Law review article

Managing Courts in Changing Times

Law review article / By

KEYNOTE ADDRESS (Executive Summary)

Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice.

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor’s speech “examine[s] how to strengthen court management’s contribution to the performance of the American judicial system.” (O’Connor, 1). She indicates that “the amount – and the quality – of justice in this country are determined in large measure by the day-to-day workings of our trial courts –far away from the Supreme Court and, in fact, from most appellate courts generally.” (O’Connor, 1). Calling the administration of justice the “great cement of society,” Justice O’Connor quotes Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers, noting that the courts “give stability and ordered growth to the social and economic environment in which we do our work and live our lives.” (O’Connor, 1).

To refresh the administration of justice, and to tackle the big questions involved in planning the future of the American justice system, Justice O’Connor recognizes the importance of taking time away from the busy pace of court management. “Conferences such as this one provide each of us with the opportunity to step temporarily away from the relentless day-to-day pressure of coping with change and to consider how we want our courts to deal with changing times, or, in other words, how to prepare ourselves – and our courts—for the future.” (O’Connor, 2). She predicts that “what we do today to shape our courts and to shape the principles by which we manage them will determine how they perform

Law review article

Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian Tribal Courts

Law review article / By

Today, in the United States, we have three types of sovereign entities-the Federal government, the States, and the Indian tribes. Each of the three sovereigns has its own judicial system, and each plays an important role in the ad ministration of justice in this country. The part played by the tribal courts is expanding. As of 1992, there were about 170 tribal courts, with jurisdiction encompassing a total of perhaps one million Americans.

Most of the tribal courts that exist today date from the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.1 Before the Act, tribal judicial systems were based around the Courts of Indian Offenses, which were established in the 1880’s by the federal Office of Indian Affairs. Passage of the Indian Reorganization Act allowed the tribes to organize their governments, by drafting their own constitutions, adopting their own laws through tribal councils, and setting up their own court systems. By that time, however, enormous disruptions in customary Native American life had been wrought by factors such as forced migration, settlement on the reservations, the allotment system, and the imposition of unfamiliar Anglo American institutions. Consequently, in 1934, most tribes had only a dim memory of traditional dispute resolution systems, and were not in a position to recreate historical forms of justice. Swift replacement of the current systems by

* These remarks were delivered at the Indian Sovereignty Symposium IX in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 4, 1996. They are published