Interview

Interview with Ken Starr at Baylor University

Interview / By

Unknown Speaker Nice to see. Elizabeth Davis Good afternoon. I’m Elizabeth Davis, executive vice president and provost at Baylor University. It’s my pleasure to welcome you to the third on topic with President ken starr conversation is indeed a privilege to participate in an event that brings together so many students, faculty, staff, and friends from the community. Baylor’s motto is pro athletes sia, protect sauna, for the church and for Texas. While our full our commitment to the church has not changed and will not change the demands of a globalized 21st century require us to think about our commitment to Texas as a metaphor for a commitment to the world beyond our borders. And that vein, these on topic conversations between our president and world renowned experts are designed to stimulate dialogue within our community on issues vital to us all. Joining judge star today is Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor was the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. her accomplishments are extraordinary, particularly in light of the era in which she began her career. Sandra Day O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, and grew up on her family ranch. The lazy be in South Eastern Arizona during the Depression. Her parents were determined that she gained an education but the options were limited given remote location of the ranch. So her parents center to live with her grandmother to attend school, and she graduated high school early. At the age of 16 and 1946

Interview

Interview with Google Chairman Eric Schmidt at Zeitgeist Americas conference

Interview / By

Justice O’Connor: You know, I have a theory. Eric Schmidt: Yes, ma’am. Justice O’Connor: Education is key. And it is not enough just to have schools so many hours a day and so many schools. It’s how we teach and what we teach, and I think we’re falling down on that. So that’s what I’ve been involved in lately. Eric Schmidt: Well, actually, as a bit of background, you were an associate justice for a couple of decades. Justice O’Connor: Yeah, 25 years I was on the court more or less. Eric Schmidt: Most of us have not spent a lot of time with the justice system. Maybe you could explain a little bit about the third branch of government, which we don’t talk much about, but you’ve lived in. It seems to me it is a system that actually works remarkably well. It is a stable system. It is self-policing. It is quite independent. You grew up in it. You were essentially selected, promoted through that system in your entire professional career. How do you think about it now? Tell us a little bit about how it actually works. Justice O’Connor: That’s a big question. We have in every state a legal system and judicial system that works at the local level. Within a city, as Cory Booker can tell you, you must have city courts and city judges, another system. And at the federal level, under the Constitution, we have a U.S. Supreme Court. And below that we have a federal Court of Appeals. They sit all over the country, 14 circuits. And we have the trial court level, the federal district courts. Eric

Interview, TV appearance

Interview with Fox News Sunday

Interview, TV appearance / By

WASHINGTON – “FOX NEWS SUNDAY” HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Even though Sandra Day O’Connor has retired from the Supreme Court, that doesn’t mean the nation’s first female justice is taking it easy.

She’s in the process of putting together her own Web site to teach students about the court system and to try to answer critics she believes are going too far. We sat down with her late this week at the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Justice O’Connor, welcome to “FOX News Sunday.”

FORMER JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: Thank you.

WALLACE: You say that one of the things that got you started thinking about this Web site were all of the partisan attacks on judges, all the talk about activist judges legislating from the court.

Why does that kind of talk disturb you?

O’CONNOR: It was a concern to me because I’ve lived a long time now. I’m a product of the last century, you know. And I do not remember a time when there were such a broad and widespread range of critics of judges.

Now, when I was a youngster I do remember seeing on the highway out by the Lazy B Ranch a big billboard saying, “Impeach Earl Warren,” and that was in the years when there were some cases like Miranda and some criminal cases, and people got all excited.

But what we’re seeing now is a more broadly based range of criticisms of the nation’s courts, both state and federal, and we saw it in the last election.

Do you remember in South Dakota there was a proposal on their ballot to amend the state constitution? It was

Interview, Radio appearance

Interview with Diane Rehm, NPR

Interview, Radio appearance / By

Diane Rehm Thanks for joining us, I’m Diane Rehm. when ronald reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, few imagine that Sandra Day O’Connor would emerge as its most influential member since retiring in January. Justice O’Connor is spoken out forcefully and defensive the courts him as huge digital decisions may anger politicians, but retaliatory threats against judges threatened democracy itself. Joining me in this studio to talk about the role of the courts and her service on the nation’s highest court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and throughout the hour, we’ll take your calls your comments, questions 800 for 338850 Send your email to Dr. show@wamu.org. Welcome to you just as how con are so good to see you. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, Diane. I’m glad to be here and to see you Thank you. Diane Rehm Tell me how concerned you are about the independent The judicial branch of our government, Sandra Day O’Connor I am concerned. I’ve lived a pretty long time now. And in my lifetime, I don’t believe I’ve seen as many complaints by members of Congress, by state legislators, by other officials, and even by the public, about judges. were hearing statements rather frequently, I think, complaining that judges are activists, godless, secular humanists trying to impose some new regime on the nation. And I just don’t see it that way. I understand that. Sometimes judges have to resolve very controversial issues. Sometimes in cases where the good arguments can

Interview

Interview with C-Span

Interview / By

Host We are talking in the conference room at the supreme court on a very busy day before the end of session, with many opinions being delivered today. I am wondering how often you come back to court. Sandra Day O’Connor my calendar has been rather haphazard since my retirement. I have not tried to set a specific schedule singing that i will be in Washington, d. C. One month and then Arizona another. I have, instead, accepted various specific engagements and have adjusted my calendar accordingly. In an ideal world, i think i would do it a little differently. It has not settled down yet. I hope it will. I have been involved with some projects concerning educating america a little bit about what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they established an independent judicial branch at the federal level. I think people have sort of lost sight of that over time. When our state’s first performed at, if they all followed the pattern set by the federal government by appointment of state judges and then with confirmation typically by a state legislative. — legislative action by either the state senate or larger action. It was president Andrew Jackson who persuaded states to take a different approach. He was a populist. It was his thinking that states should elect their ditches in popular elections. What happened was that Georgia was the first state to say, yes, that is a good idea. They stand to popular election. Many other states followed suit. We can talk more about that

Interview

Interview with Commonwealth Club

Interview / By

The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court discusses her past, the courts and why the younger generations need to become more politically engaged. Excerpt from “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor,” October 22, 2012.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Former Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

In conversation with DR. MARY BITTERMAN, President, Bernard Osher Foundation; Past Chair, Commonwealth Club’s Board of Governors

O’CONNOR: There’s nothing like ranch life to toughen you up a little bit. I mean, if it’s a remote ranch like ours [when I was growing up] – we were 35 miles from the nearest small town. If something went wrong, there was no Yellow Pages and no phone to call, so you had to do it yourself.

BITTERMAN: You graduated third in your class at Stanford Law School. But in trying to get a legal position, it was very difficult, and you ended up in a secretary position. Share that.

O’CONNOR: I was offered a secretary position, but I didn’t take it. I met my husband-to-be in law school and he was a year behind me. I graduated, and he still had a year to go. We decided to get married out on the Lazy B Ranch. It was a difficult time, because we both liked to eat. That meant one of us had to work and he was still in school, so that one was me.

I was out of law school, and my classmates from Stanford all had well-paid jobs in the big firms up here in San Francisco, earning their livings as distinguished lawyers. There were at least 40 names of law firms and phone numbers on a bulletin board saying

Interview, TV appearance

Interview on 60 Minutes

Interview, TV appearance / By

Justice O’Connor

produced by

Bill Owens

Catherine Herrick

Scott Pelley Of all you’ve heard about Ronald Reagan, there is someone you haven’t heard from. A person who has had almost as much impact on the history of our nation as the president himself. As a rule, Supreme Court justices don’t give many interviews. But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat down with us to talk about the man who made her the the first woman on the Supreme Court. Since that day in 1981, Justice O’Connor has become one of the most powerful women in America. In the years since Reagan left office, O’Connor has been the deciding vote, laying down the law of the land on abortion, affirmative action and the decision that made George Bush, President of the United States. We sat down with Justice O’Connor at the Supreme Court, an institution that had seen only men on the bench for nearly two centuries until Ronald Reagan changed it forever.

Sandra Day O’Connor It had an incredible ripple effect, of making opportunities become available for women. It was, it was just a remarkable transformation. And I really think he deserves an enormous amount of credit for making that happen in this country.

Ronald Reagan I will send to the Senate, the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, of Arizona Court of Appeals, for confirmation as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Scott Pelley Just six months in office, President Reagan made his first appointment to the court. And other than his work to end

Interview, Magazine article

Interview in State Legislatures magazine

Interview, Magazine article / By

FOR THE RECORD Sandra Day O’Connor “My time as a state legislator was a wonderful experience.” A former two-term Arizona state senator, Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate. She became the first woman Supreme Court Justice and one of the most influential members of the court who was often the swing vote. She retired from the Court in 2006 and turned her energy to writing and civic education. Today, she is the author of five books, including Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court, published this year. President Obama honored her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. State Legislatures: What do you think the average reader will be most surprised to learn from your new book, Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court? Justice O’Connor: I think people generally don’t know that for a long time in the Court’s history, the justices had to ride the circuit. They had to go around the country and sit on cases. And they weren’t sitting in Washington, D.C, all the time as they are now. That was extremely challenging for the justices. None of them liked it, and it was very burdensome. SL: When you were doing the research for your book, did you wonder how the Court survived with all the things that went on? Justice O’Connor: It had to survive. We had to have a Supreme Court. But the challenges in those days were so substantial that

Magazine article, Op ed

“How to Save Our Courts”

Magazine article, Op ed / By

In my work as a Supreme Court justice, I was required by the Constitution to fairly and impartially apply the law—not the law as I wanted it to be but the law as it was. Now, as a private citizen, I am anxious about the state of the judiciary in America. I am not concerned about particular judges or cases, nor am I concerned about the judiciary shifting right or left.What worries me is the manner in which politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice. The rule of law in the U.S. includes statutes and constitutional provisions. It also involves precedent, which is a previous judicial ruling on a matter. A judge typically defers to precedent. Like good cooking, good judging requires taking ingredients and procedures used successfully in the past and adjusting them to the case at hand. New legal recipes—or rules—can have major ramifications. So if a judge comes up with a new way to apply the law, her opinion may be reviewed by state or federal appellate courts to ensure that it is a correct interpretation of the law. If it’s not, it’s overturned. Thus, our judicial system has safeguards to ensure consistency and preservation of the law. But it is threatened when judges ignore settled law and make decisions according to personal or public preferences. The judiciary currently is experiencing unprecedented pressure from interest groups to make decisions that are based on politics. In Washington, D.C., we hear a lot about federal judges, and they have

Law review article, Speech

“Guantanamo Bay: Legal Black Hole?”

Law review article, Speech / By

The title that this Law School has given me for today’s talk is: ‘Guantanamo Bay: Legal Black Hole’. Whoever picked that title, and it was not me, was kind enough to leave me some room by placing a question mark at the end of the sentence. I appreciate that; it sounds better than an exclamation point. I know that the treatment of United States detainees in Guantanamo, and the United States’ response to terror is of interest around the world. I will describe how the United States courts have dealt with Guantanamo Bay, and then you will have to decide for yourselves whether to place a question mark or an exclamation point for my remarks. I would like to start by describing a conflict between the Executive and judicial branches of the United States government. Not long after the outbreak of war, the President of the United States altered the traditional understanding of civil liberties by finding that standard jury trials were incapable of meeting the necessities of wartime. In an effort to remedy this situation, the Executive determined that some defendants should be tried by special military courts rather than traditional juries. The United States Supreme Court rejected this claim, however, finding that the military courts lacked jurisdiction over the defendants who were United States citizens. While this conflict may sound as though it comes directly from today’s New York Times, these events predate that newspaper’s birth. Instead of describing President George W Bush and the