Speeches, Interviews, & Writing

Interviews, Speeches, Books and Writings 

In this catalog, we invite you to explore Justice O'Connor's speeches, interviews, and writing throughout her career.

Remarks to Associated Women Students at A.S.U.

Speech | May 7, 1970

Remarks to Associated Women Students at A. S. U. May 7, 1970 , by Senator Sandra D. O’Connor

President Newburn , Mrs. Gammage, Mrs. Beutler, Mrs. Valikai, Miss Hutt , Miss Murphy , and Guests:

I am very honored to be here tonight as your guest speaker for the conclusion of ASU’s Women’s Week.

It is very timely that you should concentrate on the role that women play in this country today. It will have been fifty years next August 26 since the suffragettes succeeded in obtaining final ratification of the franchise for women. Women in this country more or less settled back and relaxed after obtaining the franchise. Now, the great granddaughters of the suffragettes are unpacking the banners and going forth again to claim equality with men–in law, in treatment, and in attitude.

Women ‘s organizations throughout the land have formed to pursue these goals. There has been a President ‘s Commission on the Status of Women since December 1961. Most states , including Arizona, have state Commissions on the Status of Women. Mrs. Kathryn Gammage is Chairman of Arizona’s Commission on the Status of Women. In 1966 , Betty Frieden formed the National Organization for Women (NOW). In New York, a group called the Feminists has been formed , the leaders of which advocate an end to the family unit as it now exists.

Other groups of long standing, such as the YWCA, the BPW, and the Association of University Women also are taking an active interest in issues relating to equality of women.

Arizona Historymakers Interview

Interview | January 31, 1980

Arizona Historymakers ™
Oral History Transcript Historical League, Inc. © 2018
Historymakers is a registered trademark of Historical League, Inc.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR
1930

Honored as a Historymaker 1992
First Woman Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

The following is an oral history interview with Sandra Day O’Connor (SO) conducted by Harriett Haskell (HH) for Historical League, Inc. on January 31, 1980 in the Capitol Building of the Court of Appeals, Phoenix, Arizona.

Transcripts for website edited by members of Historical League, Inc.
Original tapes are in the collection of the Arizona Heritage Center Archives, an Historical Society Museum, Tempe, Arizona.

HH: Judge O’Connor, where were you born?

SO: I was born in El Paso, Texas, but that wasn’t really home. I…my parents lived and still live on a ranch in Eastern Arizona. But it’s in a very remote part of the state…it’s in Greenlee County, and there was no hospital nearby and my mother’s mother lived in El Paso, so when it came time for me to born, she made the trip to El Paso a few days ahead and I was born in El Paso in Hotel Dieu.

HH: Your father’s a rancher, then? Or was?

SO: Yes, yes, still is and the ranch is actually in…half in Arizona and half in New Mexico. The house is in Arizona, but to reach the house you have to drive a good many mile through New Mexico. But we are legally Arizona residents, and of course, after my birth, we immediately returned back to the ranch where I grew up. The ranch is the Lazy B Cattle Company

Trends in the Relationship Between the Federal and State Courts from the Perspective of a State Court Judge

Law review article | June 1, 1981

TRENDS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STATE COURT JUDGE

SANDRA D. O’CONNOR*

We live in an imperfect world. Most people would agree our court system suffers from some of that imperfection. We appear to be the only major country with two parallel court systems. Among other things, such an arrangement affords most convicted criminal defendants opportunities for multiple post-conviction appellate court reviews. The labyrinth of judicial reviews of the various stages of a state criminal felony case would appear strange, indeed, to a rational person charged with devising an ideal criminal justice system. Changes and improvements come very slowly, if at all, and, more often than not, incrementally, in small case by case adjustments.

State courts, which annually process the great majority of all civil and criminal cases filed in this country, handle their workload for the most part without a great deal of concern about the federal court system which exists alongside them. Trial Judges in both systems are busy hearing cases. Most state court trial judges do not have time to think about what jurisdiction the federal courts should have; they simply take each case assigned and do the best they can with it, whether or not it involves a federal legal question. On the other hand, state appellate court Judges occasionally be come so frustrated with the extent of federal court intervention that they simply abdicate in favor of the federal

Press conference after announcement of nomination to Supreme Court

Interview | July 7, 1981

Judge O’Connor Remarks
Good morning. This is a momentous day in my life and the life of my family and I’m extremely happy and honored to have been nominated by President Reagan for a position on the United States Supreme Court. If I am confirmed in the United States Senate I will do my best to serve the Court and this nation in a manner that will bring credit to the President, to my family and to all the people of this great nation.
Q. (Unintelligible.) A. We haven’t even thought about questions like that pending the confirmation hearing. Q. When did you find out President Reagan would nominate you? A. He called me yesterday afternoon, about 4 o’clock our time and spoke with me at that time.
Q. Had you considered you were a serious contender for the post? A. I assumed that I was because I was interviewed late last week in Washington. Q. By the President? A. Yes.
Q. What kind of questions did the President ask? A. I’m not at liberty to disclose the contents of the conversation and you can check with the White House on that. Q. How long did the conversation last? A. Not very long. I’d say no longer than 15 minutes.
Q. Did you speak with Senator Goldwater, Senator DeConcini, Congressman Rhodes? Have they had the opportunity to speak to you this morning?
A. Not yet. Senator DeConcini’s office got through, but my line has been very busy this morning. I think it’s been hard for people to get through. Position of Congressmen
Q. Has our state’s Congressional delegation been unanimous

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

Speech, Newspaper article | June 16, 1982

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

Professional Competence and Social Responsibility: Fulfilling the Vanderbilt Vision

Law review article, Speech | September 24, 1982

VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW

VOLUME 36 JANUARY 1983 NUMBER 1

Professional Competence and Social Responsibility: Fulfilling the Vanderbilt Vision*

Sandra Day O’Connor**

It is a great pleasure to visit Vanderbilt Law School and to dedicate the Alyne Queener Massey Library. The University is for tunate to have friends like the Masseys who, by their generous gift, carry on a proud and honorable tradition. That tradition began in 1873 when Commodore Vanderbilt provided Bishop McTyeire with the gift that resulted in the establishment of this splendid university.

Sir Walter Scott once said that “a lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect. If I may “build” on Sir Walter’s concept, I would add that before a lawyer is entitled to think of himself or herself as an “ar chitect,” two additional attributes-professional competence, and social responsibility are needed. While a background of history and literature is provided by the liberal education that American law schools typically encourage prior to the formal study of the law, it is the law school that bears the heavy responsibility of providing training to prospective lawyers in the areas of professional compe tence and the ethical practice of law.

On this occasion of dedicating the Alyne Massey library, Van-

* Copyright c by Sandra D. O’Connor. This speech was delivered at the dedication of the Alyne Queener Massey

Foreword (to Commemorative Edition: 75th Anniversary of New England School of Law)

Law review article | January 1, 1983

FOREWORD

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor*

This year the New England School of Law will commemorate its 75th anniversary. Appropriately, the New England Law Review will publish in this issue articles addressing law school education today, and the history of women in the law.

The development of the New England School of Law reflects the dra matic expansion of employment opportunities for women over the last half century. The Law School was founded in 1908 as the Portia Law School, which was the only school in the United States established exclusively for the legal education of women. Although the School became coeducational in 1934, it has continued to demonstrate an admirable sensitivity to those groups under-represented in the legal profession. The Law School may justifiably credit itself with anticipating and responding to the educational needs of mi norities, and with leading the struggle to ensure a truly equal opportunity to obtain a legal education. The results of these efforts are only now beginning to be recognized. Over the next twenty-five years there is no doubt that court room benches, law facilities, and law firm partnerships will reflect the in creased percentage of women and other minority groups who are now being admitted to practice.

The role of the law school should encompass preparation of its students for both professional competence and ethical responsibility. For too many years law schools have neglected practical skills in favor of training in legal method

Legal Education and Social Responsibility / The Moral Role of the Lawyer

Law review article, Speech | October 24, 1984

LEGAL EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

I am very pleased to be present here today, October 24, 1984, for the dedication of Fordham Law School’s expanded facility. I think I should acknowledge and thank in part for my invitation Fordham’s Rec tor in 1918. That year the faculty faced the issue of women’s rights. The minutes of a May 1918 faculty meeting note that shortly before the close of the meeting, the Rector “asked for a discussion of the advisability of matriculating women in the Law School. After listening to the opinion of the various faculty members he announced that he would take the ‘matter under advisement’ and notify the faculty of his decision.”1 A postscript to the minutes adds: “In a letter from the Rev. Rector… under the date of July 6, 1918, he writes, ‘it has been decided that, owing to objections raised against it, women will not be admitted to classes of the Law School this Fall.’ ” 2 The minutes, however, contain a terse unexplained amendment: “In September, 1918 the Rev. Rector authorized the matriculation of women and ordered the insertion of this fact to be put in the newspapers.”3

I like to think that your former Rector not only helped advance the cause of women in the law, but that he would have been pleased that a woman was invited to give remarks today.

Your new law school building is most impressive and attractive. Before moving to its present site in 1961, the Law School had a rather nomadic existence in quarters that

Our Judicial Federalism

Law review article, Speech | November 13, 1984

Case Western Reserve Law Review

Volume 35 1984-85 Number 1

OUR JUDICIAL FEDERALISM*

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor**

IN PREPARING for today’s talk I knew you might like to hear how I set about deciding cases, just what really goes on inside the Court, and how I feel personally about my colleagues on the bench, and so on. But one of the qualities desirable for a Justice is to be judicious and, therefore, those subjects are best avoided. It is not even advisable to speak about most of the interesting issues of the day, since, as Alexis de Tocqueville noted, almost every issue in American life is likely, sooner or later, to end up before the courts.1 When a Justice expresses an opinion on war or peace, on religion or politics, or even on science or literature, she always risks having her words embarrassingly quoted back at her in a brief or oral argu ment. As a result, we usually follow the advice of Calvin Coolidge:

“If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called on to repeat it.” 2

It is clear, however, that it is appropriate for me to say some thing today, and that what I say should somehow be suitable for the Canary Lecture. The Sumner Canary Lectureship honors a man who served as a leader of the Bar, as a United States Attorney, and a judge of the Ohio Court of Appeals.3 The Canary Lecture series is affiliated with the Case Western Reserve Law School, an institu tion which, as you know, originated as a department of Western Reserve and ultimately flourished as an integral

Foreword: The Changing Role of the Circuit Justice

Law review article | March 1, 1986

FOREWORD: THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE

Sandra Day O’Connor”‘

A

S Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, I was invited by the Board of Editors of the University of Toledo Law Review to introduce this year’s Survey of Sixth Circuit Law. I accepted in order

to comment upon the changing role of a Circuit Justice.

Justices of the Supreme Court historically have had a close relationship with judges on the federal district and circuit courts. Article III of the Constitution provides.only for a Supreme Court and for such inferior courts as Congress may establish. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the first federal courts other than the Supreme Court, did not create a separate federal court of appeals with its own judges. Instead, the Act required that Supreme Court Justices sit with local district judges twice a year in each district of the three circuits then in existence. Circuit panels consisted of two Supreme Court Justices and one district judge. The circuit panel had original jurisdiction in some civil matters, concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in federal criminal cases, and appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the district courts in civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeded fifty dollars and in admiralty and maritime cases in which the matter in controversy exceeded three hundred dollars. The duty to hold court in the various districts, commonly referred to as “riding the circuits,” was intended to keep the Justices

Reflections on Preclusion of Judicial Review in England and the United States

Law review article | June 1, 1986

REFLECTIONS ON PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

INTRODUCTIONLord Diplock said that he regarded “progress towards a compre hensive system of administrative law… as having been the great est achievement of the English courts in [his] judicial lifetime.” Inland Revenue Comm’rs v. National Fed’n of Self-Employed & Small Businesses Ltd., [1982] A.C. 617, 641 (1981). In the United States, we have seen comparable developments in our administra tive law during the forty year.s since the enactment of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946, as the federal courts have attempted to bring certainty, efficiency, and fairness to the law governing review of agency action while ensuring that agencies fulfill the responsibilities assigned to them by Congress and that they do so in a manner consistent with the federal Constitution. The burgeoning of the administrative state in both countries has meant that more and more of the goods and services on which peo ple depend are made available through administrative proceedings of one type or another. In the United States, this trend is evident simply from the staggering volume of claims decided by the Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration, and similar agencies, state and federal. The attendant problems of delay and xpense have been formidable. The Social Security disability pro gram alone receives some 1,250,000 applications and adds some 10,000 cases to the

Interview with Bill Moyers – “In Search of the Constitution”

Interview, TV appearance | January 1, 1987

Bill Moyers
Justice O’Connor will not discuss the controversial issues that keep coming to the court. abortion. Above all, she says as do other justices, that it would be improper for her to do so. But one of her major opinions on the court has caused alarm amongst supporters of abortion, about how she might rule on future cases. During her confirmation hearings in 1981, she had this to say,

Sandra Day O’Connor
I do not believe that as a nominee, I can tell you how I might vote on a particular issue, which may come before the court or endorse or criticize specific Supreme Court decisions presenting issues which may well come before the court again,

Bill Moyers
triggered a stormy controversy with the decision on Roe vs wade in 1973. ruling that a woman has the fundamental right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, the first trimester, the state could only outlaw abortion altogether in the third trimester when the fetus is considered viable when it can live outside the womb. In 1983, in a case from Akron, Ohio, the court reaffirmed Roe versus Wade, it struck down regulations passed by the City Council that would make abortions more difficult to obtain. The court has never said that you may not regulate abortion in the interest of the life or the health of the unborn child has just never faced that question. Feminists leaders claimed another victory for women.

Sandra Day O’Connor
And I think what they were hoping to that as a precedent for

A Tribute to Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Law review article | December 1, 1987

VOLUME 101 DECEMBER 1987 NUMBER 2

HARVARD LAW REVIEW

A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE LEWIS F. POWELL, JR.

Sandra Day O’Connor*

Changes in the composition of the Supreme Court are both inevitable and inevitably significant. As the law and the nation are to some degree shaped by the Court, so the Court is shaped by the Justices who serve on it. It is fitting, on the occasion of Justice Lewis F. Powell’s retirement, to reflect on the role of individual character in the work of the Court.

Justice Powell’s decision to retire, which came as a surprise to his eight colleagues, provides a particularly apt moment for such reflection because of Justice Powell’s extraordinary personal qualities. His departure from the Court is an important event for many different reasons, and I leave others to speculate about the effects on the publicly visible aspects of the Court’s work. I wish to focus instead on the man himself and especially on why his leaving is so poignant for those of us who remain.

Few people join the Court without their fair share of outstanding personal accomplishments. With respect to how many of the Justices, however, could their colleagues say, years later, “His very presence among us, day to day and on the bench, was something each of us valued – indeed, treasured”? I can say that about Justice Powell, for I have known no one in my lifetime who is kinder or more courteous than he. If at times he was unhappy or frustrated with one of us, he never expressed a harsh thought or

Speech at Women and the Constitution Conference

Speech | February 11, 1988

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you very much, Dean Knowles, Mrs. Carter, and Mrs. Johnson, and Ms. Powell and participants and guess this is a very special event. The bicentennial of our Constitution has been the subject of more than a year of celebrations and observances. It has produced some dramatic changes. For me and my colleagues on the Supreme Court. It was in order to better prepare for the 200th birthday of our national charter that Chief Justice Warren burger stepped down. One of my colleagues and a former Arizona William Rehnquist has become our 16th Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, former Court of Appeals judge has joined us and next week, in a very few days, we will also be joined on the court by Court of Appeals judge Anthony Kennedy. Now it seems natural for supreme court justices to be enthusiastic about the bicentennial of the document. We spend so many of our waking hours thinking and arguing about so many pages of the United States reports writing about but it is perhaps not so common for most people today to examine our Constitution. Although 200 years ago, most Americans debated the merits of the proposed Constitution. Recent polls indicate that today almost half of our citizens do not know why the constitution was drafted, nor even what is meant by the Bill of Rights 75% erroneously believe the Constitution guarantees of free public education 49% erroneous Lee believe the President can suspend the constitution

Landon Lecture at Kansas State University

Speech | February 16, 1988

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you President Wefald and Chairman Slawson, students and friends of Kansas State University. john and i are absolutely delighted to be here and then happen with you at the university. And you’re showing some very beautiful weather to us which we like do much better than in Washington DC. And of course this is the home state of to distinguish senators and one of them senator Nancy cast bomb has encouraged me for several years now to try to accept the invitation to deliver the lecture name for her father. Now I confess that I have one keen disappointment and connection with this visit. I accepted your invitation too late to meet Mr. Landon who passed away last year. And I wish that I had had the foresight to have accepted a couple of years ago and have the chance to meet him. He, through the lectures has brought some wonderful people to the university. You don’t have to go to Washington to hear the nation’s leaders they come to you right here in Manhattan. It’s an interesting time around the nation, with the presidential primary elections taking place, and international treaties being debated in the Senate. It’s also a time when we have witnessed the nomination and confirmation process at work in selecting a new justice to fail our supreme court bench and when I returned to Washington, DC this week, on Thursday, I will participate in the ceremony, during which Justice Kennedy will be installed to round out our bench again at a full nine. All

Establishing Justice

Law review article, Speech | May 6, 1988

Establishing Justice

Sandra Day O’Connor

Edilors Note: This paper was delivered by Justice O’Co nnor as the Society’s Thirteenth Annual Lecture on May 6, 1988. This paper is the text of that speech.

Precisely 201 years ago in Philadelphia, 1 55 delegates from 12 states at the Constitu tional Convention set their minds and hearts to work in order” to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the comnion defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The delegates told us their purposes at the verystartof their final draft of theConstitution. If the order of the list of their purposes means anything, ”estab lishingJustice” was particu larly important;it rankssecond only to forming a more perfect union.

Many things are involved, of course, in the effort to “establish justice”: enumerating rights possessed by every individua1, selling stan dards for holders of public office, and placing limits on the powers of government are just a few examples. Io a sense, the whole of the Constitution was an effort to establish justice by establishing a just government. But from my perspective as a judge, one thing that “es tablish justice” s-urel y means is the establi’sh ment of a judicial system.

This is an auspicious time to examjne the framers’ development of Article Ill, creating the judicial branch of our government. We have witnessed recently the process of selection of a new

Address to the National Judicial College

Interview | October 8, 1988

Unknown Speaker We have all seen the symbol of justice. A lady a woman gives me a woman blindfolded with the pans of justice being impartially balanced, how long it took us to realize that real justice needed a real woman. But thank God for Sandra Day O’Connor. Unknown Speaker I need labor her distinguished career as an honors of marketing colada graduate of Stanford University, a law review person at Stanford Law School, where another young man who was cutting his way young man named Bill Rehnquist. I haven’t heard of him lately. And he sent his apologies for not being here this evening. But they were as I understand it, both on the Stanford Law Review at the same time, and I think the nation is lucky to have such two great people in our court of last resort. Sandra Day O’Connor, of course, hails from the wonderful state of, of Arizona. Her career is just a list of government service, pro bono activities, community service, and an absolute commitment to law and community. She is surely the ideal of any lawyer and any judge. I am told that when she was first appointed to the Arizona court, she asked then Dean watts if she could come to our college, technically before she ascended her new post, and Dean watts properly had her come. So I am particularly proud tonight to introduce to you for remarks, a graduate of the national judicial college, and we of course, claim credit for her present position. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you to my colleague and friend, justice, Brandon

The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the American Judicial Tradition

Law review article, Speech | September 29, 1989

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Dean told me, as is often the case in church, there are still some seats up in front. So if somebody standing under would rather be seated, come on up and I think you might find some seats.

You’ve doubtlessly heard the praise that Charles Dickens lavished upon Cincinnati, one of the few places that enticed him during his travels through 19th century America. The judges here he said were gentlemen of high character and attainments. The society with which I mingled was intelligent, courteous and agreeable. The inhabitants of Cincinnati are proud of their city as one of the most interesting in America and with good reason. I suppose William Howard Taft was perhaps the most illustrious product of that social and judicial tradition. Although a special place of prominence must also be accorded another of Cincinnati’s leaders. My immediate predecessor on the Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart, perhaps no Justice of the Supreme Court, past or present, can rival Chief Justice Taft’s remarkable career prior to appointment to the court, Solicitor General at age 30, civil governor of the Philippine Islands, Federal Circuit Court Judge, Secretary of War, President of the United States by the way, along the way, he also distinguished himself as dean and Professor of property at the law department of the University of Cincinnati. Despite these varied honors, Taft’s greatest commitment lay with the law and the judicial tradition.

Foreword: The Establishment Clause and Endorsement of Religion

Law review article | January 2, 1990

FOREWORD: THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION

Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor*

The first few words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are deceptively simple: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The meaning of those sixteen words, however, has been a source of much debate – often intense and divisive – over the course of this Nation’s history.

Thus, as we approach the Bicentennial of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it is altogether fitting for the editors of the Journal of Law and Religion to devote this issue to a celebration and reaffirmation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Williams burg Charter on Religion and Public Life, in particular, stands as an articulate and emphatic call for civility in public discourse on religion and politics and for a renewed commitment to the enduring precepts underlying the Religion Clauses. That leaders from all walks of our society have joined together in this national compact is a testament not only to the diversity and pluralism that we celebrate, but also to the depth and strength of our Nation’s commitment to religious liberty. I applaud the efforts of the drafters of the Charter for their thoughtful contribution to our continuing national debate on this important topic.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause have had somewhat of a tortuous history in the Supreme Court. The Court’s jurisprudence in this

Managing Courts in Changing Times

Law review article | September 9, 1990

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

Speech to the National Conference on Court Management sponsored by the National Center for State Courts

Speech | September 9, 1990

Sandra Day O’Connor I’m delighted to help open this second National Conference on court management. Over the next few days, you’re going to examine how to strengthen court management’s contribution to the performance of the American judicial system. The insights you gain here, combined with your strong implementation efforts, when you go home, will benefit all of us for years to come. People look at the American judicial system in many different ways. There’s considerable attention paid to the court on which I now sit, for better or for worse. But those who see the administration of justice and the United States only in terms of the work of the Supreme Court, only in terms of what some people call the broad and cutting issues of the law. Those people really have a very narrow focus on the American judicial system. I know as a former state court judge, that the amount of and the quality of justice in this country are determined and large measure by the day to day workings of our trial courts, far away from the Supreme Court and in fact, far away from most appellate courts generally. The great majority of cases filed in the courts of the United States are filed and are limited in specialized jurisdiction courts. Day in and day out, those courts and the general jurisdiction trial courts decide what contracts will be enforced, who will pay damages, who will be punished for criminal acts. The appellate courts day in and day out, review the trial courts work and refine the many elements

Women in Power

Speech | November 14, 1990

Full transcript unavailable. Quotes from a type: entry-hyperlink id: 17KqEGdaurHNrNanSM6kev on the talk include: "Only a short time ago, the subject of this conference ['Women in Power'] would have been…

He Left His Mark

Law review article | January 1, 1991

Meeting the Demand for Pro Bono Services

Law review article | August 12, 1991

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

Supreme Court Justices from Georgia

Law review article | September 1, 1991

Supreme Court Justices from Georgia

BY SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

The newspaper headlines tell you often enough how the Supreme Court, like the other branches of the national government, reaches out to shape the lives of individual Americans. What is often overlooked, however, is how individual Americans shape the Court. It is not a surprise that Georgians have had a long and rich participation in the Court’s business.

When I became the 102nd Supreme Court Justice, many people remarked that my appointment was a break from tradition, an unusual appointment, something out of the ordinary. I think I have finally discovered what all the excitement was about. My appointment was out of the ordinary, I now understand, primarily because I was neither born in, nor ap pointed from, the state of Georgia. Consider these imposing figures. Six Justices of the Supreme Court have been Georgians, either by birth or adoption. The first was James M. Wayne, appointed by President Andrew Jackson in 1835. The most recent, of course, is Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush just this year. In between came Justices John Archibald. Campbell, William B. Woods, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, and Joseph Rucker Lamar. There have, in fact, been Georgians on the Court for 57 of the 202 years that there has been a Supreme Court. No wonder my appointment from Arizona only the second from that state caused a bit of a stir.

To trace the tracks of Georgians who have served on the Supreme Court is to trace

Speech at dedication of Arizona State University West

Speech | September 12, 1991

DEDICATION OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST Phoenix, Arizona September 12, 1991 by Sandra Day O’Connor Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States It is indeed exciting to be here at Arizona’s newest university campus. It has emerged on the west side of the Valley of the Sun to take its place in Arizona’s educational system. Despite a sputtering economy, Maricopa County continues to grow and expand. The urban area relentlessly spreads in all directions. On this west side, where farms once dominated the area, we see mile after mile of houses, apartments, and small businesses. Even with the new freeways, it is a long drive to Tempe from this area.

I was still in the Arizona State Senate when Sterling and Barbara Ridge began talking about a west side campus. That was in the early 70’s. Even good ideas need time to germinate. And this idea has taken more than 20 years to come to fruition. Looking around this evening at this handsome campus and the enthusiastic students and friends of this new University, it is clear that the wait has been rewarded.

The student population here reflects some interesting social realities about higher education today. Almost three quarters of the students here are part-time, not full-time. More than half are female, and more than half are between 25 and 40 years old. I suspect this is a result of the increased number of women in the work force today, and the increasing need of women to obtain secure and better paying jobs. A university

Keynote address (Conference on Compelling Government Interests: The Mystery of Constitutional Analysis)

Law review article | September 26, 1991

KEYNOTE ADDRESS-CONFERENCE ON COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTERESTS†

Sandra Day O’Connor*

I. INTRODUCTION BY HON. JAMES L. OAKES**

I have been instructed to make a few remarks and then to get to the more important business of these remarks.

First, I want to congratulate Albany Law School and particularly Dean Belsky, Professor Gottlieb and Dean Baker for honoring Justice Robert H. Jackson in this fashion. You will recall, this evening is in honor of the memory of Justice Jackson. No finer writer ever on the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson is a hero to me because he was the original, you might.say, county/country lawyer. Since I come from across the hills here in Vermont, and did a little general practice my self, I appreciate just how far he went with the background that he had. He has been a great inspiration to me and to the rest of us in this business of judging, and he always will be.

Second, I want to particularly congratulate Professor Gottlieb on the choice of a subject matter of burning importance in constitutional law and for assembling the outstanding group of scholars and jurists participating in this conference and who have written some outstanding papers of which I have had the benefit of reading, some, if not all. The mystery of constitutional analysis is the subtitle of this conference and I think you ought to bear that in mind as you are listening to some of the presentations. I am acquainted with several of the

† © 1992 by Sandra Day O’Connor. These remarks were

“Portia’s Progress”

Speech, Law review article | October 29, 1991

In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Through her wide-ranging career, Justice O’Connor personally witnessed the evolution of the legal world from a time when a top Stanford Law School graduate could gain employment only as a legal secretary, to one in which the law has recognized a heightened consciousness of women’s rights. She also has witnessed the development of a “new feminism,” which posits that women and men have particular ways of looking at the world. In this lecture, Justice O’Connor outlines the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the area of women’s rights and takes on the new feminism, calling it a throwback to the “myths we have struggled to put behind us.”

I am very happy to be celebrating with you the One Hundredth Anniversary of Women Graduates from New York University School of Law. New York University showed great foresight by admitting women law students before the turn of the century. It was one of the first major law schools to do so. Columbia Law School did not admit women until 1927; Harvard Law School did not admit women until 1950. In fact, New York University flouted the wishes of Columbia Law School committee member George Templeton Strong, who had written in his diary: “Application from three infatuated Young Women to the [Columbia] Law School. No woman shall degrade herself by practicing law in New York especially if I can save her.”[1]

New York women wouldn’t be saved, however. The first

Habeas Corpus and Judicial Federalism: Some Thoughts on Finality, Comity, and Error Correction

Law review article | January 1, 1992

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

Habeas Corpus and Judicial Federalism: Some Thoughts on Finality, Comity, and Error Correction

Unlike most other nations of the world, the United States has chosen to administer justice through a dual system of state and federal courts. There is an inevitable tension inherent in our ”indestructible union of indestructible states.” 1 The balancing of state and federal interests within the federal system is never static but requires constant and flexible accommodation of the often conflicting interests. In Younger v. Harris (1971), Justice Hugo Black described the essence of what he called ”Our Federalism”:

The concept does not mean blind deference to ”States’ Rights ‘ any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our national government and its courts. The framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both state and national Governments, and in which the national government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.

Any realistic picture of judicial federalism must acknowledge the primary role of the states in our federal system of government. The federal government is one of specified, enumerated powers; all powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are given to the states and to the people. The generalized police power, that critical governmental authority

They Often Are Half Obscure: The Rights of the Individual and the Legacy of Oliver W. Holmes

Law review article, Speech | April 9, 1992

They Often Are Half Obscure: The Rights of the Individual and the Legacy of Oliver W. Holmes

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

These remarks were delivered April 9, 1992 at the Nathaniel L. Nathanson Memorial Lecture series at the University of San Diego and are published here with only minor revisions. The usual academic ornamentation by way of footnotes has been added to enable interested persons to find the sources referred to in the lecture.

Most of us like to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries. I am no exception, and today it is my purpose to celebrate and note an important anniversary. It is sixty years since one of my predecessors, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, retired from his duties at the Supreme Court. His life and his work have been celebrated often and with good reason. Let me explain why.

Many believe that one of the most significant contributions made by Western legal doctrine is the concept of enlisting the judiciary as a partner in drawing the line between the individual and the power of the state. Justice Holmes was the chief architect of the application of our Bill of Rights to the states, and he set the standards for constitutional decision making. He used his incredible intellect to lay bare the policy choices in constitutional cases. He taught us that “the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience” 1 and that the Constitution “does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” 2

In 1901, a year before he took his seat on the Supreme Court

Thurgood Marshall: The Influence of a Raconteur

Law review article | June 1, 1992

Thurgood Marshall:

The Influence of a Raconteur

Sandra Day O’Connor*

I was fresh out of Stanford Law School, working as a civilian attorney in the Quartermaster Market Center, the day Thurgood Marshall changed the nation. He had been chipping away at the building blocks of a separatist society long before 1954, of course, but it was through Brown v. Board of Education1 that he compelled us, as a nation, to come to grips with some of the contradictions within ourselves.

Like most of my counterparts who grew up in the Southwest in the 1930s and 1940s, I had not been personally exposed to racial tensions before Brown; Arizona did not have a large African American population then, and unlike southern States, it never adopted a de jure system of segregation. Although I had spent a year as an eighth grader in a predominately Latino public school in New Mexico, I had no personal sense, as the plaintiff chil dren of Topeka School District did, of being a minority in a society that cared primarily for the majority.

But as I listened that day to Justice Marshall talk eloquently to the me dia about the social stigmas and lost opportunities suffered by African American children in state-imposed segregated school, my awareness of race-based disparities deepened. I did not, could not, know it then, but the man who would, as a lawyer and jurist, captivate the nation would also, as colleague and friend, profoundly influence me.

Although all of us come to the Court with our own personal

Federalism: Problems and Prospects of a Constitutional Value

Speech | June 11, 1992

While our federal system can never be perfect as long as the United States remains a sovereign union of equally sovereign states, federalism’s vitality is evident from the intensity of debates about the limits of federal and state power. The same tensions and conflicts that render questions relating to government action difficult, make our liberties strong.

The American Federal System

Speech | July 1, 1992

[T]he reach of the state and federal governments has extended into new areas not foreseen by the Founders, making it necessary to define both the outer limits of all government authority and also the boundaries of federal and state government with respect to each other. This job rests primarily with American judges.

The Quality of Justice

Law review article, Speech | August 6, 1992

The Quality of Justice

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor* Associate Justice

Supreme Court of the United States

… We all can be proud that we are “members” •of the Ninth Circuit, whether as circuit justice, judge, magistrate, employee, or practitioner. The Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force was the first federal task force formed to study the effects of gender in the judicial system, and it has produced a comprehensive, well-supported report. A couple of years ago, I gave a speech in which I discussed the exist ence of a glass ceiling for women. The next day, headlines and news paper articles trumpeted my statements as if I had made a surprising new discovery. But it is now 1992, and I don’t think most of us were surprised to learn that the Task Force found the existence of gender bias in a federal circuit. After all, over 20 state. task forces already have found gender bias in their judicial systems.

Gender bias can affect men and women, judges, coµrt personnel, lawyers, litigants, and witnesses. You may have read about its recent effect on a female lawyer in New York when she tried to make an objection at a deposition. Her male opponent asked someone to “tell that little mouse over th.ere to pipe down” and refused to.address her. (The “mouse,” by the way, fought back. Styling herself the “little mouse that roared,” she filed a motion under a New York state law prohibiting such conduct, and her opponent was fined $500.)

Without denigrating the effects on individuals

Foreword: First Women: The Contribution of American Women to the Law

Law review article | June 1, 1993

FOREWORD

FIRST WOMEN: THE CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN WOMEN TO THE LAW

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

This issue of the Valparaiso University Law Review is devoted to the contributions of some “firsts” among women in the law. Each of these women was the first to engage in a wide variety of activities previously thought to be impossible or improper for women to do. All of us owe a great debt of gratitude to our determined predecessors who, despite daunting obstacles, made possible the professional and other opportunities women lawyers enjoy today. As another woman who was the first to serve in a position formerly held only by men, I can appreciate with particular sensitivity the strength of character and the determination these adventurous women demonstrated in pursuing their career goals against far more formidable barriers.

These earlier legal pioneers faced a profession and a society that espoused what has been called “the cult of domesticity,” a view that women were by nature different from men, suited only for motherhood and homelife- compassionate, selfless, gentle, moral, and pure. Their minds were attuned to art and religion, not logic. Men, on the other hand, were thought to be fitted by nature for competition and intellectual discovery in the world-battle hardened, shrewd, authoritative, and tough-minded. A male attorney of the period commented, “[A] woman can’t keep a secret, and for that reason if no other, I doubt if anybody will ever consult a woman lawyer.”1

The four women

Discussion with former Justice Byron White

Panel discussion | August 5, 1993

Host It gives me great pleasure to introduce the moderator of this program, who in turn will introduce the panel members. Host Next faith is a former Attorney General of the state of North Dakota. He’s an honor graduate of Stanford Law School, Host a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for justice white, Host and our own inimitable, garrulous and avuncular judge bright. Host He is currently in the Fargo Office of Dorsey and Whitney. I give you Mr. Spaeth. Nicholas Spaeth Thank you, Judge McGill. It’s my pleasure to introduce the panelists for today’s discussion. The first one I want to introduce who was on my far left. Judge Lindsay Miller Lerman was familiar to the attendees at this conference because she’s been to many of them in the past. She’s a member of the Nebraska Court of Appeals since 1992. Probably That she was a partner in the Q tech rock firm in Omaha. She’s a graduate of Wellesley College, Heather JD from Columbia Law School, where she was on the Law Review. And she clerked for judge Constance Baker, mostly in the Southern District of New York. On my far right is judge Jim Logan of the a circuit who’s been on the court since January 1 of 1991. He got his Bachelor of Science at the University of Wisconsin, his LLB from Harvard Law School. He was a law clerk to judge Lombard and the Second Circuit, and they, as he and I share the distinction or honor of also clerking for justice white. He was on the White House staff from 1972 72. a partner it Fabian Benson from 1973 till

The Role of Technology in the Legal Profession

Law review article | September 21, 1993

I entered the legal profession in 1952. Though I have watched with great excitement the technological improvements that have happened since then, I’ve watched with great sadness the decline in the esteem in which society holds the legal system and the legal profession. And at the same time, I have watched with some concern the decline in collegiality and overall happiness I have seen among fellow lawyers.

I am sure all of you have heard the complaints: Our legal system is inaccessible to most except the wealthy; even relatively prosperous people and businesses are often nearly bankrupted by litigation; lawyers too often disserve their clients with shoddy work; lawyers are by and large unhappy people, crushed by an unreasonable work load and unable to maintain both a successful work life and happy family life. These criticisms are by no means universally true. But there’s enough truth in them that we should take them very seriously.

I think-I hope-that technology, creatively applied technology, can help us solve this problem. It certainly can’t solve it by itself. It can’t make litigation free or even very cheap; it can’t make a foolish lawyer into a sensible one; it can’t reform an unprincipled or rude or unethical adversary. But it can help.

Historically, the surest way to greater productivity has been technology. All of us have already adopted much labor-saving-and therefore money-saving-technology. From PC’s to voice-mail systems to faxes to car phones. But there are other

Speech to Philadelphia Bar Association

Speech | October 27, 1993

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Chancellor Dennis, for a very warm introduction. And all of you are getting your exercise jumping up and down and judge the Pyro, whom I’m so thrilled to be here to honor today. And Chief Judge, slow vector and Chief Justice nicks and other wonderful and distinguished judges and citizens and lawyers and members and friends of this Philadelphia Bar Association. This is really a special day, even for a cowgirl from from Arizona. And I’m so very honored that you have decided to establish a Sandra Day O’Connor award. I’m honored that you chose to give this award my name. And more importantly, I’m delighted that you have taken the opportunity to recognize the significant accomplishments of women in the law with the publication of this marvelous book with the initiation of this award, and especially to recognize those women who like judge Shapiro have advocated the Advancement of Women in the profession, and the community and who have a reputation for being mentors to other women. Historically, encourage men or women to pursue careers and the legal profession was rare in the early part of the century, called Columbia Law School committee member George Templeton strong, wrote in his diary application from three infatuated young women to Columbia Law School. No woman shall degrade herself by practicing law in New York, especially if I can save her. Most of the early women legal pioneers faced a profession in a society

Speech to American Bar Association

Speech | December 12, 1993

Host
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference. we’re privileged this morning to be graced by the presence of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who, through her graciousness, has agreed to participate and be with us in this our work today.
Justice O’Connor, having been born in Texas, and educated in California, finally decided to settle them, Arizona or she built an outstanding body of work in public service service to her community. She was an assistant attorney general of Arizona in the late 60s before serving on the State Senate, or eventually she became the Minority Leader of the Senate. In 1975, she left the state senator of Arizona, one election to the Maricopa County Superior Court soon elevated to the Court of Appeals in 1975 and served there until 1981. On July 7, that year, President Reagan nominated Justice O’Connor to the Supreme Court. She took her oath of office on September 25 of that year. And for more about this remarkable person. I command to your attention justice economist VI, which appears in the material for the conference. That way, 13 years since her elevation to the nation’s highest court, she has distinguished herself as a jurist, as we all know. Her superb judge and superb mind have been the hallmarks of our service, to the bar, to the profession, and to our country. Ladies and gentlemen, I asked you to join with me in welcoming Justice Sandra Day O’Connor O’Connor, Associate Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sandra Day O’Connor
Thank you.

Remarks to Supreme Court Historical Society introducing a lecture on “Taney, Lincoln, and the Constitutional Convention”

Speech | March 30, 1994

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to the second half of the lecture series. I happen to be very enthusiastic about the lecture series sponsored by these two organizations. We justices love our history. So I’m here to learn a little more along with you tonight. Our lecture this evening is Professor Philip pallidum of the University of Kansas. He is the author of five books dealing with the Civil War period in our nation’s history, and numerous published articles. No one is better qualified than he to participate in this lecture series about the Supreme Court during the Civil War period. He will speak to us tonight about Chief Justice Taney President Lincoln and the constitutional conversation. Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney was from Calvert County, Maryland. I think I was asked to introduce the speaker tonight because I believe I am not only justice sense Chief Justice Taney to live in the state of Maryland. But be that as it may, he married and key, the sister of Francis Scott Key who wrote the Star Spangled Banner. Taney came from an agrarian family. In fact, I think they grew tobacco, and he inherited some slaves. Boom, he laid her set free, but he believed that the federal government had no authority to limit or abolish slavery. He thought that authority resided only in the States. He was a federalist and when the Fed Roll a party fell into disarray. He became a Jacksonian Democrat, which led him time to his appointment as Attorney General of

Speech to the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia on women in the legal profession

Speech | May 24, 1994

Sandra Day O’Connor My wonderful colleague, Justice Ginsburg, and judge green and President Sabbath, and the other judges who were kind enough to be here tonight for this event. And all the distinguished guests who are here, including one of the two women on the Supreme Court of Israel, and half the membership of the most distinguished organization in the area, the male auxiliary of the United States Supreme Court. If you think I was happy when Justice Ginsburg was appointed, You Oughta Know how happy my husband was. Well, it’s a special treat to participate in this particular meeting of the women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia. And the foundation, as well. And to join you here tonight to honor my newest colleague, Justice Ginsburg. And to look out at this audience tonight, which includes so many distinguished women in the legal profession, gives me a sense of achievement and a change. When I first started to practice law in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1958, the women lawyers in that area would gather occasionally to have lunch with justice Laurin on Lockwood, the first woman to serve on the Arizona supreme Court, we could, and we did all fit around one round table for eight. But it was a start. And our numbers have multiplied in Arizona and across the land. I’m often asked whether it makes a difference that we have women judges, and whether the Justice dispensed by women judges is somehow different than that, that we would expect from men and answering such questions.

Panel discussion at Ninth Circuit Court Judicial Conference

Panel discussion | August 16, 1994

Host
Each year at our conference, we eagerly eagerly look forward to the opportunity to hear from the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Who is the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
We are delighted that Justice O’Connor and her husband John have joined us again this year. Also joining us are three distinguished lawyer representatives of our circuit, who will engage Justice O’Connor in a conversation. It is my pleasure to introduce them to you. First, Ms. Lorraine Akiba. Ms. Akiba received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and her law degree from Hastings College of Law. She is in private practice in Honolulu. Ms. Akiba is a lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit, traditional conference and chairs the Hawaii lawyer delegate delegation.

Host
Ms. Nicole Dillingham. Ms. Dillingham did her undergraduate work at the University of Illinois and received her law degree from Northwestern University where she was on the Law Review. She practices law in San Francisco and as a member of the American arbitration Association and as on the executive committee of the California State Bar Association. Ms. Dillingham chairs the lawyer representatives Coordinating Committee and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Executive Committee.

Host
And Mr. Les Weatherhead. Mr. Weatherhead graduated from the University of Oregon, received his law degree from the University of Washington. He is in private

Remarks honoring former Justice Lewis Powell

Speech | October 14, 1994

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra Day O’Connor Mrs. Parker, Mary, Dell prints law, Justice Powell, councillors, directors, members and friends of Stratford Hall. What a treat it is for john and for me to visit this beautiful place. We wanted to for 13 years ever since we got to this area. But this was the first time we’d had a request we just couldn’t refuse. That is to give a little tribute to Lewis Powell. And how can I say no to that? So here we are. And we’re, of course, enchanted with this beautiful farm, its surroundings and and all that it has to offer. It’s my job tonight to tell you a little bit about Lewis Powell. And you know, a lot of it already, ’cause it’s in your programs, and it’s in the background. And I hope a lot of you have already read the biography of Lewis Powell, but I’ll say more about that later. You know, Justice Powell, was the 99th justice on the Supreme Court. Perhaps he was the most reluctant justice. It’s reported that on the day in January 1972, when Lewis Powell was sworn in, together with William Rehnquist, my law school classmate that Nan Rehnquist asked Justice Powell’s wife, Jo, if it wasn’t the most exciting day in her life. And Jo reportedly said, “No, it’s the worst day of my life. I’m about to cry.”

Lewis Powell had turned down an appointment to the Supreme Court in 1969. He was prepared to turn it down again in 1972. Luckily for the Court, and for the nation, Lewis Powell reluctantly agreed to accept the

Remarks at National Center for State Courts honoring Judge Ellen Ash Peters

Speech | October 17, 1994

Unknown Speaker And appellate levels in our home state of Arizona and who became the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Unknown Speaker Thank you. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, Larry. It is a real treat to be here tonight with so many luminaries from the state court system, mile home. And Chief Judge Peters Chief Justice Peters is going to be remembered for many things. For her life as a legal scholar, as an author, as a state Supreme Court Chief Justice as a member and volunteer for many charitable organizations, and she’s also going to be remembered as an uncommon Lee nice person, as a loving wife and mother and as a friend. And today, we know two new jobs for which Chief Justice Peters will be remembered as chair of the board of directors of the National Center for state courts, which sponsors this dinner. And as President of the conference of Chief Justices. Now, Ellen ash Peterson, I have something in common. We were born within five days of each other. I’m not telling you who’s older. Born in Berlin, I am El Paso, Texas. We have something else in common. Each of us has an absolutely wonderful husband. And my husband and Ellen’s husband are members of the same fraternity. And Philip stand up nobody has pointed to recognize. As a former state court judge, I have a strong appreciation for the complex that TM the delicacy of the relationship between the federal and the state courts. Chief Justice Peters brings enormous talent

Speech to the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship

Speech | November 3, 1994

Sandra Day O’Connor That was a wonderful introduction. I don’t know how Natalie got all that information. But she really did some research and made it fun. I don’t have a magic wand to wave. I’m here this morning really chat very informally with you about this business of being a cancer survivor. It’s been six years since I underwent surgery for breast cancer. The impact of diagnosis of cancer at that I received is is one which has not been far from my thoughts at any time during these six years. But as Natalie told you, this is the first time that I have spoken publicly about my experience. And I’m not sure that my experience is any different than anyone elses. In fact, I’m quite sure it isn’t. So what I have to say this morning, for those of you who are here, as survivors, or friends or relations of survivors is going to sound hauntingly familiar. I suspect, Dr. Mark Lippmann invited took me to come here today. And he was a tremendous help to me in the period after I was diagnosed as having cancer. And I’ve continued to see him from time to time at various events, and have been most impressed with the work that he has done to further research into the type of cancer that I had.

You’re gathered here today, not just as people concerned with breast cancer about all types of cancer, and to discuss all aspects of a cancer survivorship, the effects on the patients on their families, the health care professionals that take care of them, and in the community in which they live.

Federalism of free nations (The Interaction between National Courts and International Tribunals).

Law review article, Speech | February 17, 1995

FEDERALISM OF FREE NATIONS

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

At the end of World War II, Justice Robert Jackson took leave from the Court on which I now sit to serve as America’s chief prosecutor at the war crimes trials in Nuremberg. He opened the case with these words: “That four great Nations, flushed with victory and stung by injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”1 I think it evident that the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, reflecting an unprecedented level of multilateral cooperation and restraint, was a watershed in promoting the rule of law among nations. The principled success of the Nuremberg tribunal fostered confidence in a post-War regime of international dispute resolution predicated not on Power, but on Reason; on Right, not Might.

This timely conference finds the international community in the midst of another seachange in how we resolve conflicts among nations and disputes that transcend national borders. New international institutions are proliferating faster than at any time since the years immediately after World War II. We have witnessed the establishment of several new multilateral development banks since 1989, three environmental bodies since the United Nations’ Earth Summit in 1992, and new multinational bodies that will come into being under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of

Speech on the participation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

Speech | May 11, 1995

Unknown Speaker Thank you. Sandra Day O’Connor Welcome all of you. It feels a little odd to me to be on this side of that bench. But here I am, and very happy to be here for this most interesting topic tonight. And I would like to say a special thank you to Leon Silverman for his marvelous work as president of the Supreme Court Historical Society. He’s really been he has spent so much time and effort on it. I think it’s really worthwhile and I’m constantly grateful for all that he’s done. This series, of course, commemorates the 50th anniversary of the end of World War Two and like every other instance Tuition in our country, the Supreme Court was affected by the war. And unlike everyone else in the country at the time, Supreme Court justices were involved in the war effort. There is an exhibit on the ground floor that illustrates some of that. But today we focus our attention on the very direct involvement of justice Robert Jackson, who took leave as a sitting justice in order to serve as the United States chief counsel to the Nuremberg trials. From my perspective, I think the most remarkable aspect of justice jackson, the service and Nuremberg is that he did it at all. The very idea of an independent judiciary would seem to require that justice is fully discharged their judicial function, and only their judicial function file a member of the court, but I have to admit that the practice of justices Setting political appointments and undertaking non judicial duties has an historical

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

Speech, Law review article | June 29, 1995

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

Speech to the Republican Governors Association on the impact of the Reagan presidency on the federal judiciary

Speech | August 29, 1995

Sandra Day O’Connor
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Sandra Day O’Connor
Now, please sit. It’s too hot to stand up. This is the first time that john and i have been privileged to visit the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. And it’s such a treat to be here today and to see this wonderful spot, the building and a bit of the program that is displayed here. I’m very excited about it. It’s simply lovely. And I’m sure it’s no surprise, if I say that as President Reagan’s first appointment to the Senate Supreme Court. The invitation to speak at his library was one that I very happily accepted. President Reagan instilled in this country of fresh pride in the principles that underlie our democratic system. He has always been a great champion of democracy. And as president he spoke often and forcefully about implementing our framers vision. He also pursued a vigorous and a successful foreign policy. Ronald Reagan held this country together through the last days of the Cold War. Through his resolute leadership, he paved the way for the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. It is only fitting that a man of such great accomplishment should have this wonderful facility dedicated to the study of his legacy. scholars will no doubt come here to debate the significance of the Reagan era era for years to come. But at least in one respect, Ronald Reagan’s legacy is a more immediate significance.

One of the greatest opportunities that our president has to guide the future of the nation

The History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement

Speech, Law review article | September 23, 1995

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. And that was the best introduction I’ve ever had. From the best sister I’ve ever had. I can’t tell you how pleased I am to be here with you today to commemorate the ratification of the 19th amendment. We’re starting this talk a little early. Maybe before you’re finished with launch, and we’re doing that because I have so much to tell you today. I normally try to be very brief in my speeches. I’m not going to be brief today. Because this is a story that needs telling and you need to know what if you don’t Ready.

I find it difficult to imagine that only 75 years ago, a woman’s right to vote was not protected by our Constitution. It’s hard to remember that we have taken for granted all our lives, something that some of our grandmothers never enjoy. But we’re here today to remember such things, to celebrate the amendments that extended to women, one of the fundamental rights of citizen participation, and to reflect on how far we’ve come. In order to appreciate the tremendous progress made by American women in the last century. It’s important to think about the point from which we started the history of the suffrage movement. He has a colorful and entertaining one and a tale from which we can draw many lessons. begins in the late 18th century, as this country’s political, governmental and social frameworks were only beginning to take shape. When the wife of future president john adams implored her husband in 1776 to remember the ladies and drafting

Acceptance speech for award from Congressional Families Action for Cancer

Speech | September 28, 1995

Host Herself a cancer survivor, Mrs. O’Connor has made advocating unified team treatments for cancer patients for special cause. From her vantage point on the world’s most noticed, and most influential judicial panel, she can not only see what the public’s needs are, but with one word can greatly influence outcomes. Her advocacy of early detection and treatment weighs greatly with the American public. And we salute her efforts with this award today, for she i think is probably the best example in the world, that having breast cancer is not a death sentence, but that you can go on and be anything you want to be if you just address the problem. We honor you today. And please join me ask everyone here to join me in giving her our award today. Thank Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. I must say, Debbie, it was lovely to hear those words. But when I hear about the others you’ve honored today and hear the work that Dr. Klausner and people like Dr. Klausner are doing, I feel that my contribution to this discussion has been very small indeed. What this organization is about is building bridges, building bridges, from your communities and the wide sphere of brands and influence that each of you have to the centers of knowledge and skill and understanding about cancer and prostate cancer and what can be done to alleviate them? So your bridge builders and the other honorees or bridge builders, my bridge is very small. But my honor is very great. And being here today and being with

The Life of the Law: Principles of Logic and Experience from the United States

Law review article, Speech | October 20, 1995

ADDRESS

THE LIFE OF THE LAW: PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC AND EXPERIENCE

FROM THE UNITED STATES THE FAIRCHILD LECTURE*

THE HONORABLE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR..

These are times of tremendous change in governments across the world. Since the mid-1980s, a remarkable number of countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Soviet bloc have turned from dictatorship to elected civilian government. In several visits to Eastern Europe, I have been impressed by the strides taken by these countries toward their goals of liberty and democracy. But if they are to retain and build on their recent gains, the new governments must put into place a framework that can ensure the survival of basic freedoms. Of course, such a framework must be adapted to the political and cultural history of each country. Already, we see the post-communist countries begin to differ significantly in their political, constitutional, and social development. Despite the important differences among nations, and forms of governments, however, some basic principles must be enforced if a government is to ensure the liberty of its citizens.

Since emerging from the grip of the Soviet Union, developing nations of Eastern Europe have looked to Western ideas about economic structure, the relationship among branches of government, and the relationship of the individual to the community for guidance in designing their own institutions and processes. Tonight I would like to discuss certain aspects of our governmental scheme that have been

In Memoriam: A Tribute to Warren E. Burger

Law review article | January 1, 1996

A TRIBUTE TO WARREN E. BURGER

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor*

A Chief Justice is always a special figure in American history, and indeed, only sixteen Justices have held that position since our Constitution was ratified. Warren E. Burger was the fifteenth Chief Justice, and his seventeen years in that capacity were distinguished by his energy and his efforts to improve the judicial system throughout the United States. His life and his service as Chief Justice have left their imprint on many aspects of our legal system.

Chief Justice Burger graduated magna cum laude in 1931 from Saint Paul College of Law, the earliest forerunner of William Mitchell College of Law. He was the president of his law school fraternity, Phi Beta Gamma, which, in uncanny foresight, conferred upon him the title of “Chief Justice.” Warren Burger could not have attended a traditional day law school. He had married and started a family and found it necessary to hold a full-time job in the insurance industry to support his family. If it were not for the opportunity that Saint Paul offered him to attend law school classes at night, he would have been unable to enter the legal profession.

Throughout his career, Chief Justice Burger had a profound interest in raising the quality of the work of the judicial branch by improving the management of the courts. As Chief Justice, he worked to make the Supreme Court-and all courts-more responsive to the needs of those who used them. He left a legacy to the most

Religious Freedom: America’s Quest for Principles

Law review article, Speech | May 23, 1996

It is an honour and a great pleasure to be standing here today in Belfast to deliver the MacDermott Lecture. In the inaugural lecture in 1972, Lord MacDermott suggested that the lectures be used to examine “our principal legal concepts” insofar as they impact on the “progress and happiness” of our communities. 1 My topic today is one that is central to the harmony and happiness of pluralistic western democracies, and one that, in very different forms, is a recurring concern in both Northern Ireland and America: religious freedom.

I shall focus on that with which I have some experience: the jurisprudence of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In doing so, I make no pretence that American solutions can be imported lock, stock and barrel into other nations with quite different cultures, traditi_ons, and diverse religious groups. And I certainly do not claim to have a solution for this country’s problems of sectarian rivalry and conflict. But an American illustration of some key general features of a regime of religious freedom may, perhaps, stimulate thought and dialogue about what should be a goal shared by diverse religious and non-religious groups.

• • • • •

There is, as Justice Holmes once icily remarked, something “perfectly logical” about attempting to use the power of government to promote and impose upon others one’s own opinions. As Holmes explained, “if you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally

Commentary (Organization of Justice in the Twenty-First Century)

Law review article | June 1, 1996

COMMENTARY

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

It is a real pleasure to be here with you and to see this remarkable gathering of representatives of the highest courts of so many countries in this hemisphere. It is a wonderful step that you are taking, and one that I am sure will be helpful to all the participating countries in the future.

Justice Calvete gave a very thoughtful and insightful paper. He is to be commended for his presentation and the thought that went into it. He pointed out for us some of the far-reaching implications of trends that appear certain to affect the administration of justice far into the next century, which is right around the comer. Courts everywhere, not just in this hemisphere, are seeing increased caseloads. They are seeing increased caseloads in large measure because they are seeing increased populations-more people to serve, more cases to decide.

How do we predict what is going to happen in the future? How do we know? And what should we do about it? It seems to me that each country is going to have to make some long-range plans to deal with the problem. It is one thing to recognize it, but we have to plan to deal with it. Justice Calvete pointed to population growth and that is certainly correct. Demographers have a pretty good track record in the United States of plotting prospective changes in population. It is pretty clear in our country that as we go into the next century weare going to have many more senior citizens. People are living longer in our

Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian Tribal Courts

Law review article | June 4, 1996

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

Speech at dedication of statue to the memory of Justice Robert H. Jackson

Speech | August 14, 1996

Sandra Day O’Connor This is a wonderful occasion for Jamestown and for all of us who are lucky enough to be here and see the unveiling of this absolutely handsome and strong statue of Justice Jackson. We’re remembering today a product of this community and of its public schools. The most treasured honor that anyone can receive is one that comes from one’s own town, from those who knew the honorary first and best, so it is today, Robert Jackson, one of the finest justices ever to sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court, grew up on a farm close to Jamestown. It was here that he attended the Jamestown elementary and high school that he married, had his children and practice law. It was here that he spoke in 1935. At the dedication of the new Jamestown high school building, he said them. If you believe as I believe that democracy is the form of government best adapted to our people, then you must regard the public school as the most fundamental concern of our society. Democracy well. Democracy will always call most of its leaders from the ranks of humble man, and to equip them It must provide free education to the sons and daughters of disadvantaged homes. Robert Jackson was born as you heard in 1892, I thought it was in Pennsylvania, not New York. Early in his life, the family did move to a farm in this area. His father was a farmer, a lumber man and a stock breeder. He advised his son Robert to become a doctor. Instead, on graduating from Jamestown High School, Jackson

A Tribute: Dean Ronald F. Phillips, Twenty-Seven Years of Leadership, Wisdom, and Devotion

Law review article | January 2, 1997

As you step down after twenty-seven years as Dean of the Pepperdine School of Law, one can only think of your years there with awe. You have given the Law School its rightful place in the Sun. The quality of life for the law students is superb-a fine faculty, a supportive and caring administration, and a magnificent setting. You have brought many intelligent and interesting people there to speak to and interact with the students. You and your beloved wife were a “dream team.”

Few people survive and thrive in the difficult position of Dean of a law school for more than a few years. Your long service is evidence of your own personal qualities of cheerful disposition, optimism, caring, and energy. You leave big shoes to fill.

May your future years bring you a chance to share what you have learned with others so they may follow your splendid example.

Sandra Day O’Connor Associate Justice United States Supreme Court

Interview with Town of Paradise Valley Historical Committee

Interview | February 4, 1997

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR Tuesday, February 4, 1997 Joan Horne, former Mayor of the Town of Paradise Valley, and myself, Ann Townsend, are most privileged to interview Justice of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor, thank you very much for your graciousness in granting this interview in your home in Paradise Valley. Interviewer: Do we have your permission in quoting you in part or all of this interview for our project on the history of Paradise Valley, Arizona? O’Connor: I think we will do the interview first and then decide that. Interviewer: All right. Are you a native of Arizona? O’Connor: Yes and no. I grew up on the family cattle ranch in the eastern part of Arizona and the western part of New Mexico. The ranch was in both states. To get to the ranch house, we had to drive through miles and miles of New Mexico, before we crossed back into Arizona. The house was in Arizona. My grandfather started that ranch in 1880. That was where my parents were living when I was their first child. My mother wanted to go to the hospital for the birth of her first child, understandably. Her mother and father were living in El Paso, Texas, where my mother had lived before she married my father. Shortly before my expected arrival, my mother went to El Paso. I was born in Hope Will Do Hospital in El Paso. I understand that structure is no longer there. As soon as she felt up to travelling, she arrived back to the ranch with a relative, we got in a car and drove back to the Lazy-B

Acceptance speech for Janet Reno Torchbearer Award

Speech | May 14, 1997

Ruth Bader Ginsburg thank you so much because of the good job, I now hold, invitations come in abundance. To preserve energy and time for the courts heavy work, I must ordinarily just say no. For tonight’s celebration, however, I did not just say yes, I asked the women’s bar if I might have the honor of presenting the torchbearer award to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. For all who know her agree: She fits the description to a tee. She is indeed a trailblazer. A grind human, whose mind carrying an incredible energy have encouraged women everywhere, to be brave. To appreciate their own worth, to aspire and to achieve. Sandra has been celebrated in many ceremonies. She has been praised for her independence, self reliance, practicality, and self possession. Of all the accolades one strikes me as describing Sandra best. Growing up on the lazy b ranch in Arizona. Sandra could ride a horse brand cattle driver tractor and fire a rifle with accuracy before she reached her teens, one of the hands on the ranch recalled his clear memory of Sandra Day. She was in the rough and rugged type. But she worked well with us in the canyons. She held her own. Sandra did just that at every stage of her professional and family life. The first woman on the Supreme Court brought to the conference table experiences others did not possess the experience of growing up female in the 1930s 40s and 50s. raising a family of doing all manner of legal work, government service, private practice successes successful

Juries: They May be Broken, But We Can Fix Them

Law review article | June 1, 1997

Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States continue to use juries to hear evidence and determine the facts in many criminal cases, although only the United States and New Zealand continue to require use of juries in most civil cases. Indeed, the jury system in this country is one of the most enduring aspects of our system. The only time most Americans, other than lawyers and litigants, see the inside of an actual courtroom is when they are called to serve as jurors. Juries have a proud history, both in this country and in England, where the jury as we know it developed. Juries usually do their job very well, and on occasion show extraordinary courage in the face of hostile or corrupt judges, delivering the verdict that justice demanded, even if it was not the verdict the judge wanted. As a trial judge, I presided over many jury trials in both civil and criminal trials. In all but two or three cases, I felt the jury reached an entirely appropriate verdict and the jurors were almost always conscientious and sincere in trying to do a proper job. But juries also have the ability to disappoint us, sometimes to the point of forcing us to question whether we should have jury trials at all. One of this country’s great observers of human nature, Mark Twain, once complained that juries had become “the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive.” 1

Our federal Constitution and all of it state counterparts guarantee

Acceptance speech for American Bar Association medal

Speech | August 2, 1997

Sandra Day O’Connor Attorney General Reno, President Cooper, and distinguished guests and members of the American Bar Association. My feelings at this moment are of gratitude for this signal honor you’ve bestowed on me. And of amazement over the unlikelihood of at all, that a cowgirl from Arizona would have found her way not only through law school, but through 45 years of experience in the legal profession all the way to our nation’s highest court and to This wonderful honor tonight in the city of San Francisco. It was here in this city in 1952, that I was sworn in to the State Bar of California. And that lovely courthouse now restored for the Court of Appeals. It was just south of here in Redwood City that I persuaded the county attorney to give me my first job as a lawyer. Follow the road to this podium has in fact been a long one. It seems very short to me. It feels like only a few years ago, that law school opened my eyes to the world of the rule of law, to the intrigue of legal analysis, and the satisfaction of solving people’s disputes through negotiation. And when all else fails, litigation, the American Bar Association was in existence long before I entered the legal profession. It’s been working throughout my years as a lawyer to study and analyze different subject areas of the law and to propose and help achieve improvements. It has been a strong supporter of a qualified, competent and independent judiciary. It has worked hard to support adequate compensation for

Speech to American Bar Association Annual Convention on efforts to assist emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe

Speech | August 2, 1997

Unknown Speaker Well, I always thought I was the perfect person to introduce Justice O’Connor, because although it might not be obvious, if you look at our resume side by side, she and I do share two very important qualities. First, we are both women of the Southwest. Secondly, we have the most marvelous patient husbands on the face of the planet. Unknown Speaker But the other reason, Justice O’Connor that I assumed that I was given the honor of introducing you today is that although you don’t know it, you look over my shoulder every single day at work. One of the pleasures of being a president of the American Bar Association is that you meet magnificent people from all over the world. And very often you have your photographs taken with them. I’ve even had my photograph taken with Mickey Mouse. But I have only one picture of a famous person in my office. And it isn’t with me. It’s looking at me right above my desk, behind my chair. When I come into my office and Albuquerque every morning and turn on the lights and pull up the blinds. Justice O’Connor is looking right at me with her very direct gaze, that Brooks no dilly dallying, and says to me every day, I expect you to do more than your best because your best isn’t quite good enough. I know that you will hear this afternoon when Justice O’Connor receives the ABA medal about her magnificent contribution to American jurisprudence. And introducing her today. To all of you who care so deeply about the cause of democracy around

Speech to International Association of Lawyers

Speech | September 3, 1997

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you President Venugopal. I have the privilege of meeting your president Venugopal in India a couple of years ago when I went to give a lecture there named for his father, who was also a most distinguished attorney in India. And I’m so pleased to be able to come here to this wonderful city of Philadelphia tonight. The birthplace of our nation’s constitution and an absolutely wonderful city. So you chosen a great place for your making. Technology is constantly shrinking our world. From cellular phones to fax machines, beepers to email, satellite communications to the internet. new forms of communication have enabled us to talk to each other, whenever and wherever we happen to be. But it takes more than technological capability to enable people from different nations to communicate effectively with each other. People from all nations need language skills, they need a deeper understanding of foreign cultures, and they need deeper familiarity with foreign traditions and values. A nation’s ability to meet these needs will largely determine its ability to cope, and what has become an increasingly multinational environment. The United States is just beginning to recognize these needs. High Schools here, which wants only talk French and Spanish, as foreign languages now offer Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic and a host of other languages as well. American businesses have also responded to the increasing globalization of brain,

Professionalism

Law review article, Speech | September 26, 1997

It is a great pleasure to be here at Washington University to dedicate this magnificent new home for the law school. Winston Churchill once said that “[w]e shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”1 Here you

have shaped a beautiful site, commensurate with Washington University’s reputation and equipped to meet the demands of contemporary legal education. I expect that this stunning facility will in turn inspire innovative scholarship, and nurture young lawyers with the finest legal skills and the highest professional standards.

As lovely as it is, what I would like to talk to you about today is not your new building. I would like to discuss my granddaughter. You see, I recently returned from an extended period of grandmother-granddaughter bonding sort of a cross-generational in-the-family version of Thelma and Louise and she is often on my mind. At one point during the visit, my granddaughter came to me, disappointed about having to perform some task or another. It was pointless, she said. Well, she didn’t actually say ”pointless.” Pointless, in the vocabulary of a young child, is replaced by two words: ”But why?” Her meaning was clear nonetheless. Her second objection was that it was “no fun.”

“Pointless and no fun,” one of my friends quipped. ”If those were

legitimate objections, we wouldn’t have anyone practicing law.” The comment seemed funny at that moment, but in retrospect it seems disconcerting. Is that what the practice of law has become-pointless

Introduction to a speech on the life of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft

Speech | October 8, 1997

Unknown Speaker Society. Professor post lecture runs for an hour and 15 minutes and followed production by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O’Connor am so pleased that the Supreme Court has or Historical Society is sponsoring this series of lectures on former chief justices. Now I have a special interest, of course, justices, but I think everybody should. And what really pleases me is that the lectures are held in this court room, and especially tonight going to hear about Chief Justice William Howard Taft. I mean, what better for us to hear about Taft, he was the person that thought Supreme Court should have a home of its own, instead of meeting in the basement in that Burt over in the capital that most of you have visited and he thought we had Court and a building of our own. And it had been talked about day but never approved, and Taft as the only person to ever President of the United States and later as Chief Justice, still have some clout politically with the Congress. He persuaded Congress to appropriate money for this building. And Taff did more than that he hired the architect for it, Cass Gilbert, and he was influential in forming the design and getting it carried out. I think we have one of the most wonderful buildings in all country, inspired every single day when I walk in here, and so it is special that we’re in this court room that Taft helped make possible to here at this lecture. I think there have been two chief justices who really deep About judicial

Remarks at dedication of Women’s Military Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery

Speech | October 18, 1997

Sandra Day O’Connor Secretary Cohen, General Vaught, distinguished guests here today and women of the United States military service. This is such a special moment, and a very proud day for women. I’m here today, not as a member of the military service, not as a veteran, but as a woman, as a grandmother, and perhaps as just a judicious observer. From the American Revolution, to Operation Desert Storm women have served in the military for most of the nation’s history. That service was unauthorized and carried out by women as volunteers, sometimes disguised as men. Approximately 127 women fought and skies is soldiers in the Civil War. After a century beginning in 1901, the United States Army established an auxiliary for nurses. Women did not become a permanent part of our armed services until 1948. But their number was kept 2% of the active duty force. That ceiling was lifted in 1967. Today, women represent about 11% of our armed forces. Some 211,000 women are on active duty, and there are some one and a half million American women who are veterans of the military service today. It is time indeed that we dedicate this splendid memorial to the women who have served in the military. As major Beatrice hood stroke, put it This isn’t just my brother’s country or my husband’s country, it’s my country as well. Indeed it is. Women have taken their places and all fields of endeavor in this country, from outer space to ocean depths, from battlefields to Court Room benches, from Chow lines

“Fiftieth Anniversary Remarks”

Speech, Law review article | November 1, 1997

Fifty years ago, Stanford Law School began a transformation from regional respectability to national preeminence. A central rite of passage in the school’s progression was the establishment of the Stanford Law Review in 1948-an event made possible by the presence of an enterprising group of students, some dedicated young faculty members, and a new dean. The year that the Class of ’49 embarked on their legal studies at Stanford, Dean Carl Spaeth began his stewardship of the law school. It soon became apparent that founding a Law Review would figure prominently in the new dean’s vision for Stanford’s future.1 Once he obtained the unanimous support of the faculty, he called upon Charles Corker and John McDonough, two young professors with previous law review experience, to guide the new venture. They played the role of senior editors for an Intramural Law Review that served as a training vehicle for the first editors. As John McDonough has described:

By precept, example, and the time-honored process of remorseless, word-byword editing of student manuscripts, they sought to instill in the neophytes of ’49, who would edit Volume I, those standards of excellence in research and analysis and of meticulous care, if not obsession, with detail, citation, and language that are the hallmark of a first-rate law review.2

The Class of ’49 itself was an unusual group of students: Many of them had recently returned from military service, some of them were older than their predecessors had

On Federalism: Preserving Strong Federal and State Governments

Law review article | March 1, 1998

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

Acceptance speech for Ellen Browning Scripps medal for women’s archievement

Speech | March 10, 1998

Sandra Day O’Connor Well, I’m all weighted down now with this fantastic medal. And my husband and I are so happy to be at this beautiful campus today and what a day you will produce for us. It’s incredible. We don’t have days like this in Washington DC. We can even see the snow capped mountain Mount Baldy. MM, this gorgeous campus. And we’re thrilled to be here and I’m so honored by the presentation to me today of the LM browning scripts award. You know Ellen browning scripts was a very special moment. When we look back and try to identify those women who’ve made a significant difference for the lives of all women who follow. We would include Ellen scripts on our short list. She lived a simple, brutal life, obtained an education largely by our own efforts eventually helped her brothers found a newspaper Empire and Layton life founded this very college Scripps College for Women. She had no money to go to college, and worked for two years to pay the cost of going to Knox College back in 1856. She graduated and became a teacher. She saved money has a teacher and moved to Detroit and help her brothers establish a newspaper. She even wrote a newspaper column as you’ve already heard. For many years, it was called Miss Ellen’s miscellany. She moved to California in 1890, where she remained until her death at age 96. All of her resources, which were considerable and time, she gave to charitable causes which interested her. She’s been described as a person who was a principal architect

Remarks at the awards ceremony for the national finalists of the Center for Civic Education’s We the People program

Speech | May 4, 1998

Sandra Day O’Connor This is the most impressive group all assembled to work and think and celebrate the Constitution. And I’m really pleased to have a chance to stay at say a few words to you tonight about justice, which is a very elusive concept. And it’s been the subject of human aspiration throughout the history of the human race. 1998 marks the 200 and eighth anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Bill of Rights comes closest to our American notion of personal freedom and justice. And my appreciation for the Bill of Rights. It’s understandable because I spend a significant portion of my life working life thinking, arguing and writing about what it allows the government to do and what it does not allow. And yet after 17 years as a Supreme Court justice, I’m still awed by that document adopted 208 years ago. It’s as vital and timely today as it’s ever been. And I want to talk just a little bit about the history of the Bill of Rights, how it came to exist, and how our perspective on it has evolved. It was June of 1789 when James Madison stood up in the House of Representatives, and gave the speech in which he set out his first draft of what would eventually become the Bill of Rights. What prompted him to do that? History tells us that the Bill of Rights was not an accident. It represented the culmination of a long standing struggle between two groups. Trying to find the proper balance between the rights of individuals and states and the need for a strong central

Remarks at funeral of Justice Lewis Powell

Speech, Law review article | August 31, 1998

We are gathered here today to remember and to celebrate the life of Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Last week Lewis left us and went home to God and to rejoin his beloved wife, Jo. I was at the Supreme Court in January 1972 to witness the investiture of Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist. I met the Powells at the reception following, but little did I dream then that I would know Lewis Powell as a colleague on the Supreme Court nine years later.

Justice Powell was the ninety-ninth Justice to serve on the Supreme Court and perhaps the most reluctant. It is reported that, on the day in January 1972 when Lewis was sworn in, Nan Rehnquist asked Justice Powell’s wife, Jo, if it wasn’t the most exciting day of her life. Jo reportedly said, “No, it is the worst day of my life. I am about to cry.” Lewis Powell had turned down an appointment to the Court in 1969 and was prepared to do so again in 1972. Luckily for the Court and the Nation, he finally agreed to accept the nomination when President Nixon convinced him it was his duty to his country to do so.

His family dates back to Thomas Powell who came to the James River area of Virginia from England in 1635. Lewis was born in Suffolk, Virginia, but lived most of his life in Richmond. He was an able student and a good athlete – playing basketball and baseball. He learned how to shoot and enjoyed hunting. He also learned as a youngster the demanding nature of life on a farm – his father bought a milk cow named Mollie. Lewis was directed to feed

Broadening Our Horizons: Why American Lawyers Must Learn About Foreign Law

Law review article | September 1, 1998

Feature

Worldwide Common Law Judiciary Conference

BROADENING OUR HORIZONS: WHY AMERICAN LAWYERS MUST LEARN ABOUT FOREIGN LAW

A Commentary

We live in a world that is constantly shrinking. Cellular phones, fax machines, beepers, e-mail … all of these new forms of communication have made it much easier for us to talk to each other, no matter where we are in the world. We need, however, more than technology to communicate with people from other nations. We need language skills; we need deeper understanding of foreign cultures; we need to know how to survive in an increasingly multinational environment. Many of our schools recognize this need, and many parents are taking great interest in language training. High schools now offer more than French and Spanish. They are adding Japanese and Russian, as well. American businesses have been in the forefront of this move towards what newspapers constantly herald as the “globalization” of trade. There are McDonald’s restaurants in Moscow, and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises in Beijing.

American judges and lawyers, however, sometimes seem a bit more insular. We tend to forget that there are other legal systems in the world, many of which are just as developed as our own. This short-sightedness begins early in our careers. We learn in law school to look first at the decisions of our own state courts. If we appear in federal court, unless the Supreme Court has spoken to an issue, we look to the law of our local circuit and, perhaps, district.

Speech to American Bar Association on law and national security

Speech | November 12, 1998

Unknown Speaker Ladies and gentlemen, if you please. I’d first before introducing Justice O’Connor, I’d like to just say a brief word about the special edition of the National Security Law Journal, which is here on the tables. That includes, among other things, the eulogy that Justice O’Connor gave at justice, palace funeral, and a number of other remarks. And justice pals honor and in as much as this is a special tribute to him. This this dinner this evening. I like to thank every meeting of this committee as a tribute to him. But this is a special tribute. I invite you to pick a copy up on your way out and make it part of your power collection. I’m particularly pleased to have been given the assignment to introduce Justice O’Connor, to the family, to the committee and to its broader family. In part two, because of the special place that she had in the affections of lewis powell and the special esteem the professional esteem that he had for her. I’ve been instructed to make my introductions snappy, she shakes her head. And therefore I won’t pause long over the record facts which are well known but quite astonishing. So I’ll just glide by them quickly. Coming off a large cattle ranch near the New Mexico border, growing up there getting to Stanford at age 16. If I counted correctly, getting both her bachelor’s degree and Law Degree in six years. I think I’m right about that. finishing third in her class, and then finding herself unable to persuade any top law firm on the west

Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer and high school students on how the Supreme Court works

Panel discussion | December 10, 1998

Sandra Day O’Connor Are we in communication now with O’Connor high school? Unknown Speaker Yes, ma’am. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Okay. I’m Sandra Day O’Connor, an Associate Justice here at the Supreme Court. And I’m appearing here this morning with my colleague, Justice Stephen Briar. And we’re delighted to have this hour to spend with some students and talk to you a little bit about what we do and what it is. The Supreme Court does, and I think we’re going to start off with Justice Briar, because he has done this program once before, so he’s had all the experience and we’re going to start off with justice Briar. Right? I’d like but you’re in the Benjamin Banneker academic High School. Stephen Breyer All right over there. We have the Mount Vernon High School over here. Good. And we have the Sandra Day O’Connor. Hi. I haven’t forgotten the honor High School. Down here. Is that right? Yes, they say that they’re there at a long distance there in Texas. That’s right. Very lucky there. And I guess it’s the the 10th 11th and 12th grades 12th grades 11th grade, just 12 fine. Okay, then your experts. All right by this. Let me Can I ask you a couple of questions of what your idea is. I would like to know if somebody says to you now there is a legal case going on a case of law. In a court, what do you think it could be about? What are the what kinds of things? Could it be about? This Any question? Anything can be anything it could be about? copyright, it could be about copyright.

Speech at dedication of Western Justice Center Foundation

Speech | February 8, 1999

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you judge Nelson, for that very splendid introduction. You can just see why it’s been so terrific for the western Justice Center to have just judge Nelson involved. Because talk about a bundle of energy. And you can’t tell her No. I mean, there’s no such thing. So she has a tremendous asset. And President Donald Baker who has provided such Distinguished Public Service in Los Angeles County, along with his legal work, and I know what an asset he’s been to this institution, and Bill Drake, who was captured from a dispute resolution facility in Washington DC to come out here. And I think that was a great asset. And my boss back here, Chief Judge Proctor hug. I’m the Ninth Circuit justice. So I have to do what he says we’re in the ninth circuit here. And so. So he’s been a great Chief Judge, and how fortunate it is that he also is involved in this marvelous project that was initiated really by the first efforts of the Ninth Circuit judges, we’re going to occupy this wonderful building. You know, the original Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Court building is that fantastic facility in San Francisco that was damaged so badly in the last earthquake, but is now restored at a very high price, taxpayer dollars, but it’s it’s love light. And the Court of Appeals judges from Southern California used to have chambers and work in downtown Los Angeles. But the old this stuff, but they call it this stuff,

Speech at National First Ladies’ Library awards dinner

Speech | March 16, 1999

Sandra Day O’Connor Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Albright, Mary Regula, Wendelyn Brooks Elizabeth Campbell, Shirley Chisholm, thank all of you for this wonderful honor and this very delightful evening. Although I was the first woman to serve on the US Supreme Court, the credit goes not to me, but to the thousands of women before 1981, who demonstrated that women can do a good job in any field of endeavor. And all those women who spoke out forcefully in seeking equal opportunities for women in the workplace in my lifetime, not just in yours, Elizabeth Campbell, but in my lifetime, too. We’ve seen extraordinary improvement and opportunities for women. These changes have been good for women, and they’ve been good for our country. Congratulations, Mary, on the establishment of the First Lady’s Library. Americans admire their first ladies so much, and all of us will welcome this institution dedicated to preserving the record of their achievements. Thanks for making this such a special evening.

Remarks to National Center for State Courts on public trust and confidence in the justice system

Speech | May 15, 1999

Unknown Speaker Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you very much, Chief Justice Lackett of my home state Supreme Court, Chief Justice Veasey of Delaware with whom I had the privilege of being with back in November when I went to Delaware for an event of the state bar there. And all of the chief justices, justices, judges, great Americans and others here at this conference today, I’m so glad to be with you. But I’m also very nervous because I haven’t been able to attend your conference. And I told Tom’s Lakha that I thought I had a lot of nerve to come here and talk to you on your last day when I didn’t know what you would been talking about. And I hope you will Give me because I haven’t been privileged to be part of your conversations and I surely wish I had, because there’s a lot I could learn. And I’ve been a little bit out of touch with things in the state court systems lately, as you might have noticed. So I think those of you here are in tune with what’s going on much more than I am. I work in a building which bears a marble inscription over the entrance that says equal justice under the under law. The subject of this conference shows an admirable awareness of the importance of public trust as a dimension of equal justice. This is the first national conference on this subject, and it’s very impressive that so many state Chief Justices and state court administrators are here. Also impressive is the hosting array of National Court organizations, the American Bar Association, state

Commencement address for Washington College of Law

Speech | May 23, 1999

President Ladner and Dean Grossman, and faculty graduates and friends of Washington School of Law. What a special day. This is for all of you graduates of the American universities, Washington College of Law, and for your families who helped you to reach this day and this moment, it has taken each of you at least three years and perhaps considerably more of law school studies to enable you to obtain your law degree today. You will have no more lectures and exams to endure.

And the faculty will no longer have you to endure. You will presumably begin to use your legal training in a variety of ways. Someone private practice, summon the public sector, summon business or a non legal pursues, but your thought processes, the way you approach and analyze problems is now forever changed. You’ve learned to break down complex issues into their component parts, and to look at them with some detachment and objectivity. You’ve learned how and where to try to find some answers. These are not insignificant achievements.

Now, it’s a special day for me as well. This law school, as you know, was founded 103 years ago, in 1896, 24 years before women had the right to vote. Founded by two determined women, Ellen Spencer Mussey and Emma Gillett. Its first students first read, we’re women. Since its beginning, the Washington College of Law has valued the role that women as well as men play as lawyers in our society. It has provided strong clinical programs to give students hands-on experience, helping those

Panel discussion with Justice Stephen Breyer and judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Panel discussion | July 26, 1999

Stephen Breyer Justice is Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Brier participate in a question and answer session with judges of the ninth us Circuit Court of Appeals. This event took place at the circuits annual Judicial Conference held this year in Monterey, California. It lasts an hour. Unknown Speaker Judge case and mythos p&i are the live in the water be at the opportunity to carry on this conversation with our justices. I’m not going to make any elaborate introductions. All I’m going to say is this is not Judge Judy, and matters not judge Walker. Unknown Speaker The usual custom. We’re going to start off with a question to the junior justice. Unknown Speaker Several factors influenced the members of the conference. But to choose, as the theme for this conference, the importance of the independent judiciary in securing a free democratic society for its citizens. Many of us have had an opportunity to observe firsthand the corrupt and proven sighs legal systems of the country’s emerging from dictatorial systems, the contrast to our own legal system, but home the preciousness of our system, and we have the striking criticism of judges by politicians on both sides of the aisle. The bear incident was produced over judicial confirmations have suggested that we need to pay heed preservation of our own independent judiciary asking just just prior to see a real threat to our traditional independence, or is this just business as usual? And do you have any suggestions as to how we might

Room for Improvement

Law review article | September 1, 1999

Room for Improvement

Although public confidence in the justice system is relatively high, several aspects of the courts call for reform

I work in a building that bears a marble inscription over the entrance that says “Equal Justice Under Law.” Everyone involved in our profession (including law students preparing to enter it) would do wen to remember that public trust in the justice system is critically important as a dimension of equal justice under law.

Two 1999 national surveys by the American Bar Association and the National Center for State Courts reveal a fairly high level of public confidence in our courts. There is a widely held belief that, although not perfect, our justice system is one of the best in the world. The public’s faith in our system has in creased over the last 20 years, even as confidence in other public institutions has.declined. But the surveys also show substantial dissatisfaction in some areas.and many opportunities for increasing public trust in the justice system.

Among the areas that affect public attitudes toward the justice system are Juvenile and family courts, bias in the courts and court-community relations, the jury system, and access to justice-issues of my own longtime concern.

Many other issues are certainly as import.ant My failure to include them here by no means indicates that I consider them unworthy of attention.

The first item on my list of concerns is the need to strengthen juvenile and family courts. This need often has been

Speech at dedication of new building for University of Oregon Law School

Speech | September 15, 1999

Unknown Speaker I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon the meeting is adjourned. And Unknown Speaker you’re watching c spans America and the courts. Next associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor helps dedicated new building at the University of Oregon law school and Eugene defense about 25 minutes. Unknown Speaker It is rare that a speaker so perfectly fits the occasion, as does our speaker in this dedication. As we dedicate to Wm W. Night Law Center, we do so building on a legacy of qualities that we aim to carry into the future. qualities that have served our state so well, and qualities that will continue we hope to do so. There are many but I think particularly of three that are most applicable today, a pioneering session spirit of boldness in thought and action, and a wisdom that is deep and lasting in its vision. Since our beginnings as Law School of the West, the University of Oregon School of Law has worked hard to be at the forefront of legal needs and new areas of practice, not content simply to follow, we have aim to lead and to prepare legal practitioners to do the same. Along with this pioneering leadership, we’ve encouraged the boldness of thought and action, and ability to move beyond the ordinary two ways and means of achievements not yet considered, let alone practice. This has been a Center for Public Service and law reform. And we’ve encouraged and nurtured a worldview that sees beyond letters to the words beyond words to the entire text, beyond

The Legal Status of Women: The Journey Toward Equality

Speech, Law review article | September 28, 1999

Sandra Day O’Connor And welcome to all of you. I wish we had more space. But people like sometimes to visit the Supreme Court, and I feel very privileged that I could participate in this meeting today and sponsor the availability of these rooms for that purpose today. And you’re all most welcome here. And ambassador, maj to Ben, this is Laura and my fellow panelists here and distinguished guests.

It gives me great pleasure to be here today and to give remarks on a subject in which I take considerable interest, the legal and social status of women. I would like to thank Ambassador Mejdoub, the Hannibal Club, and the President’s Interagency Council on Women for providing this forum to discuss and promote women’s issues.

Women from all countries have much to share with each other about their own cultures, experiences, successes, and failures. Today, as always, women are the primary caregivers worldwide. We bear and nurture the children, and we manage the household for our families. But we also work outside the home. We want and expect to have equal opportunities in business, in the professions, and in public service. We want and expect to be paid as much as men for the same work. While women have made tremendous advances in this century, the process of achieving gender equality is still an ongoing one, in this country and throughout the world. In many respects, we have traveled far, although we have a way yet to go. We remember the old adage that “[t]he test of every civilization

Panel discussion with other justices at Stanford University Law School on the international role of the Supreme Court

Panel discussion | October 16, 1999

Kathleen Sullivan (Dean, Stanford Law School) Thank you, Mr. Neil, for that extraordinarily generous introduction. Thank you Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Breyer for gracing the stage and this illustrious event. Thank you all of you judges who stood a moment ago to be recognized not only for your attendance, you give us honor by your presence. But for your years of public service, all of you together do participate in what we must be proud of as one of the crown jewels of the American system of government, air independent judiciary, which is indeed the envy of the world. And that is really our topic today: the envy of the world. Why is it? What if anything, should we envy about judiciaries in other nations? And I would just open this discussion of comparative judicial systems, first by telling you a little bit about the people on this panel, and then by introducing the topic.

Let me remind you, as you already no doubt know about each of these wonderful justices from the western United States. First, that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is twice a Stanford Graduate. She received both her BA and her law degree from Stanford. She was at the very top of one of the most talented law school classes ever in our holes, the class of 52, which also included the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist. While she was at Stanford Law School, Justice O’Connor was a member of the Law Review. And indeed, it turns out that she met her husband, John O’Connor, and spent some time doing

Panel discussion on U.S. and European Courts at Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law

Panel discussion | April 16, 2000

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you very much all. We’re not going to take much time now because we want to leave time for discussion. But I wanted to say how much it means to those of us in the United States that members of the European Union’s Court of Justice were willing to take the time in their break to visit this country to come to New York and visit us in Washington DC starting Tuesday and Wednesday, and then to have a state court experience when they conclude their visit in the state of Texas. And we had those of us in the United States learned a great deal from our visit to the European union summer before last. It was invaluable to those of us who were privileged to make that journey. And we’re just so delighted that you Paul and Judah and john Sexton and the others who have participated in making this visit begins so well in the city of New York. Thank you. And I think my colleague Justice Breyer has a word in French.

Sandra Day O’Connor It’s rather interesting because the concept of proportionality, as you described it, which you apply in looking at actions of the member states, resonates for us with the kind of language we use and applying strict scrutiny for an action, or eight that might be said to infringe some fundamental individual liberty in this country. That’s the same kind of inquiry we make. Whether it’s the least restrictive means whether it was necessary to achieve the objective, how important the objective was. These are the kinds of things we look

Commencement address at George Mason University

Speech | May 20, 2000

Thank you, President Merton, the Honorable Ed mace, and my fellow honorary degree recipients.

Now first of all, we have find out what are these privileges a permanent they are to President Merton. I keep hearing that, and I haven’t quite figured that out. It is an enormous pleasure to be here today at George Mason University. After all, it’s a day of joy for everyone. You graduates have no more University exams or classes to endure. And I might say the faculty no longer has you to endure. You have you have fame and fortune ahead of you, your family, spouses and friends can look forward to seeing more of you. And your speaker has the rest. But from her labor’s up on Capitol Hill, so it’s quite a day. Now, I realize we’ve gathered here today to applaud those of you who are receiving degrees. But there are a few other people here today who should also be recognized and with whom you graduates probably would like to share your glory. I refer, of course to the parents, spouses or other family members who have made some significant contributions to your presence here today. First of all, your parents have the brains which you were lucky enough to inherit. And your family probably provided at least some of the money you needed to sustain yourself while you were here. So I congratulate your families and command you graduates for your good judgment in selecting them. Now, a commencement speech is a particularly difficult assignment. The speaker is given no topic and is expected to be

Remarks at the American Bar Association’s Woman Lawyer of the Year award ceremony

Speech | July 9, 2000

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank Thanks. Thank you so much. What a special day this is for all of your honorees and how happy I am to be in the company today with such a remarkable group of women honorees, I can’t imagine a better group and I have sat today fascinated with every single one of them and everything they had to say. I’ve heard how special this event always is. And I’ve not been able to attend all these luncheons, but I think I’m gonna have to come back because I grew up as a cowgirl in the southwest. And I learned out there that the only thing that mattered was whether you could lend a hand and do it well. It didn’t matter whether you were black, white, or brown, male or female, young or old, you’re just had to do your job. And it was a place where everything around you could hurt you. If you didn’t watch out. You could run into a rattlesnake. You shook your shoes out to get rid of the scorpions. Every time you fell off your horse, you were in danger of falling into a cactus. I mean everything out there could bite, prick, tear, cut, or whatever it was. And all I ever wanted to be was a cattle rancher. That was all I knew. My grandparents had done the same, and my family. And it’s been a long road from that dry, barren Southwest cattle ranch, to the marble courtroom, where I often find myself sitting today. It’s been a very long and often a very hard road for women lawyers, since Margaret brand became the first woman

Remarks celebrating the Magna Carta at the Runnymeade Memorial

Speech | July 15, 2000

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you President, Bill Paul, and the Lord Chief Justice Harry volts my friend from even before my days on the Supreme Court, and Lord justice Norse, it’s good to see you again. And to see all of the members and brands of the American Bar Association, who were able to come to this remarkable place today. I don’t know about you. But when I walked today, across this Meadow to this historic spot, I was deeply moved. This Bob resonates with historical significance to everyone here today. And every citizen of the United states and of the United Kingdom, and indeed far beyond the boundaries of those two nations. And it’s a wonderful privilege to speak today in commemoration of one of the most momentous occasions in legal history. In many ways, the story of English liberties, and therefore the story of American liberties began on this very meadow, when King john affix the Great Seal of the realm to the Magna Carta. In truth, the grievances of the barons who impelled King john to come here in June of that year, were rather mundane concerns the barons were generally unlettered and self interested man, who sought practical concessions from the king and return for their allegiance to the crown. The Magna Carta bottom is an intensely practical document. tailored to the problems of feudal times, spelling out one by one concrete remedies or actual abuses. But in addressing the specific grievances, the great chart or use language that transcended the barons parochial

Discussion at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Conference

Interview, Panel discussion | August 22, 2000

Host Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen, will you please take your seats as we’re ready to begin the last segment of the program today. Thank you. Welcome to what has become a highlight of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. And that’s our conversation with Justice O’Connor. Now based on what we heard from the last panel, the internet panel, I’m thinking that perhaps we can protect this segment of the program under a Judicial Conference methods patent, but we will leave that maybe for the Federal Circuit. Our panel this morning includes Chief Judge [Terry] Hatter from the Central District of California, Peter Benvenutti partner from San Francisco firm of Heller Ehrman and Professor Kathleen Sullivan, Dean of Stanford Law School. Although we are listed in the program as interviewers, I think that’s somewhat of a misnomer, because we don’t really intend to interview Justice O’Connor. The Sandra Day O’Connor that’s news to me. Host But you’re not off the hook because we will ask you some questions. We just won’t call them interviews. Courts last term certainly was an interesting one. And the cases resonated, I think, not only with judges and lawyers, but with the public at large. They dealt with everything from the Boy Scouts in the First Amendment, tobacco, the Violence Against Women in Act. Two, of course, Miranda warnings. Some of the legal commentators and pundits of which you know, there are many have called it a blockbuster term. I’m not

Speech at dedication of Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse

Speech, Law review article | October 2, 2000

In October 2000, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor visited Arizona to dedicate two new federal courthouses: the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Federal Courthouse in Phoenix and the Evo Anton DeConcini United States Federal Courthouse in Tucson. The following is a compilation of Justice O’Connor’s comments given at the dedication ceremonies.

It is a great pleasure to be in Arizona this week to participate in the dedication of not one, but two, new federal courthouses-one in Tucson and one in Phoenix.

The dedication of the Phoenix courthouse is an occasion that has, for me, a sense of unreality. How is it that the name of a cowgirl from Eastern Arizona would be carved in stone on this large new federal courthouse in Phoenix? As many of you know, I grew up on a cattle ranch in Greenlee County, miles from any town. My ambition as a child was to be a cattle rancher like my father. That was not to be, and, in time, I entered law school at Stanford. I knew only one lawyer at the time. He practiced law then in Lordsburg, New Mexico, and years later was appointed a federal district court judge. I did not know where a law degree might lead.

When I graduated from law school in 1952, I received no offer of employment as a lawyer. There was one half-hearted offer of a job as a legal secretary. In time, I persuaded the District Attorney of San Mateo County to give me a job as a deputy. My career as a lawyer was launched. John and I were married, and within a year he was drafted, then accepted

The Supreme Court and the Family

Law review article, Speech | November 17, 2000

REMARKS

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FAMILY

Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor*

It is a true pleasure to be here at the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s sesquicentennial celebration and at the Family Law Symposium. The celebration makes me feel young-by comparison. It is appropriate that one of the centerpieces of your celebration should be this symposium on family law. The family is at the heart of American life, as well as American law. As Justice Powell wrote on behalf of the Court in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, “‘the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.”1

It is this deep commitment to the family that has led so many of you to dedicate your careers to the development of family law. Family law poses special challenges and requires judges and attorneys, as well as other professionals like psychologists and social workers, to study and work together. And you must work together often-in 1998 alone, approximately five million cases involving domestic matters were filed in state courts.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to maintain and improve a legal system that protects and respects the family, both as a unit and as a group of individuals with their own rights and interests. It is not an easy task, particularly in light of the momentous changes

Speech at General Services Administration award ceremony for architects of federal buildings

Speech | March 29, 2001

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you so much, Mr. Anderson. And Acting Deputy Administrator bib and Mr. Kiss Delaney and my friend Bill IV. Now, they’ve already said everything I was going to say to you. So I’m a little bit of trouble. You know, there are about 370 federal courthouses in the United States. And there have been, as I count them, about 60 funding requests for new federal courthouse construction, actually approved by Congress in the brief period from 1986 to 2001. That’s a lot of courthouses, when you think they’re only 370 to begin with. And those funding requests total, by my calculation, about 501 million or half a billion dollars. Each of these projects has required architectural engineering, design, and other construction expertise, expertise of all kinds, which will be recognized today. I don’t know about you, I’m not talking to the architects now, because you probably already think this. But I place a very high value on architectural services. I care about my surroundings, whether it’s my home, or where I work, I feel better, and I work better. If I’m in a place that I think is handsome, and that I enjoy, it makes a real difference to me. I suspect it makes a real difference to everybody. And I think that good design matters in courthouses and elsewhere. It must, of course, accommodate the basic functional needs of the structure in a courthouse, that means court rooms. And I have to say they’re pretty know by and large these days, maybe you can figure out something

Altered States: Federalism and Devolution at the “Real” Turn of the Millennium

Speech, Law review article | May 15, 2001

Sandra Day O’Connor Mr. Vice Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice, and my lord millet and Sir David and Lady Williams, Professor Smith and distinguished guests, friends of Cambridge.

It is my great honour and pleasure to deliver the inaugural Sir David Williams Lecture. Sir David is among the most distinguished members of the legal academy not only in this country, but around the world. His teaching career began at the University of Nottingham, after which he taught at the University that, I am told, is known affectionately in these parts as “the other place.” Sir David then joined the Law Faculty at Cambridge, later serving as the Rouse Ball Professor of English Law and President of Wolfson College. Sir David has been a path-breaker in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. His books, “Not in the Public Interest: The Problem of Security in Democracy”, and “Keeping the Peace: The Police and Public Order”, are landmarks in his fields and, I suspect, will be for a long time to come.

Sir David’s impact, however, is not confined to the life of the mind, but extends also to the world of public affairs. While enhancing our understanding of democracy, he has demonstrated a passionate concern for the quality of life in this democracy through his public service. He has served on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Council of Tribunals, the Clean Air Council, and a number of other bodies whose work is significant. Sir David has also excelled as a leader

Roundtable discussion on Native American legal issues at National Judicial College

Panel discussion | July 20, 2001

Host What you’ve seen in the last three days? What are your impressions? Sandra Day O’Connor I guess we’d both like to share some thoughts on what the impressions are. And it was a short trip. So I’m sure that what we saw is only a fraction of what’s available to see. And I would not think that we gained an insurer knowledge about anything, but we did have some impressions. And the first thing my I noted is that nothing in Indian country is said briefly. And the second thing is that if you’re going to visit Indian country, you have to be prepared to eat heartily. And I noticed I have to confess a general unhappiness with some recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of Indian law. I think that was clear. We also saw a tribal court system in a small tribe setting in the Spokane tribe, and a tribal court system in a very large setting in the Navajo Nation. And the tribal courts that we saw small and large, were functioning and functioning very well. The Navajo court is suffering from a horrendous caseload. Well over 70,000 cases annually And 14 trial court judges now how can you have the left and the facilities in Window Rock, which is probably the best facility? We’re limited. So here are judges in need of some additional judges and some enhanced facilities. I think, nevertheless, we met some wonderful judges in, in both tribal court systems that we saw, and people who cared and are determined to function well, and it was very impressive to see that. And we saw some real

Speech at groundbreaking ceremony for New York University Law School’s new building

Speech | September 28, 2001

Unknown Speaker Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is next. She recently spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony of New York University Law Schools new building in Manhattan. She reflected on the American spirit after seeing the ruins of the World Trade Center. Unknown Speaker When we scheduled this event, there was only one person our community wanted to deliver the principal address. Remember the faculty lunch at which she spoke to us that stimulated the idea for a conference that just the other day as we celebrated the success of the global law school initiative, was referred to as the seminal intellectual event of that program, now widely recognized as having transformed all of legal education, not just this law school. But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor didn’t just do that one act of beneficence to this school. She has been an integral part of this law school community at every turn. She has visited our campus during my time as Dean, this is now I think, her seventh time. And every time she comes, she meets with faculty as she will today. She meets with students as she will today. And she enhances our world. But equally, she’s been there as counselor and advisor throughout the evolution of this law school. There is no one outside of the immediate law school community, who is a great friend to this law school, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And I’m delighted to introduce her to you today. Justice O’Connor. Unknown Speaker Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Unknown Speaker

Discussion on the state and federal judiciary systems with the National Association of Women Judges

Panel discussion | October 5, 2001

Susan Herman
Let me say to start that I cannot claim to be a non woman, but I certainly can claim to not be a judge. And I’m looking at the three pictures in the program. I thought, well, you know, law professor takes you pretty far when you’re the front of a classroom. But yeah, I was feeling said about ranked until my daughter said to me, Mom, for tonight you can outrank anyone, you’re Oprah.

Judith Kaye So I let’s talk

Susan Herman
I guess we’ve all been around court circles long enough to know that you never get to start by talking to the judges on the highest court first. So I would like to ask judge Kaye to start us off our reminiscences by reminiscing, your husband referred to your decision to go to law school. Would you like to share some of how you went into the law and why you decided on that?

Judith Kaye
May I say, first, that I think the evidence is incontrovertible that I married very well. Excellent. And indeed, I I never, never for a moment growing up, wanted to be a lawyer. In fact, I did grow up as you’ve heard so much about me already in a small community. I think there was one woman lawyer there once but I never saw her. Talk about private people. So being a lawyer was not something I ever saw or aspire to infect. What I aspire to was a career in journalism. I sort of saw myself as critic of the decision makers. That was what I yearn to be. But it was impossible to find work back in the year 1958 when I graduated, just like you from Barnard

Recording session for Lazy B audiobook

TV appearance | October 16, 2001

NBC interview with Katie Couric

Interview, TV appearance | January 25, 2002

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,

Interview on PBS NewsHour

Interview, TV appearance | February 1, 2002

GWEN IFILL:

The book is Lazy B: Growing up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest. The author is Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor, of course, was the first woman appointed to sit on the Supreme Court. But long before she got to Washington, she lived a life we read about only in westerns. In Lazy B, she joins her brother, Alan, in recalling their memories of those times. Welcome, Justice O’Connor.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Author, Lazy B:

Thank you. Well, it is a joint effort with my brother, Alan. And Alan ended up running the ranch for most of his adult years. And so he had lots of institutional memories of that amazing place.

GWEN IFILL:

Well, tell us about the ranch, for those of us easterners or those of us who aren’t native to the Arizona-New Mexico border.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR:

Well, it’s… It’s in the semi-arid high desert plateau region on the New Mexico-Arizona border, along the Gila River. And it gets very little rainfall a year, about ten inches a year — about 5,000 feet in elevation, other than the higher mountains to the South. And it’s just… It has a subtle beauty that the desert can have. But it’s maybe difficult for someone in the Northeast who’s used to seeing greenery all the time to appreciate that desert scene.

GWEN IFILL:

What was unique about growing up on a ranch like that?

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR:

We were isolated. We had no neighbors, really. It was 35 miles to town. We would go to town once a week to get the

Speech at Dedication of Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center

Speech | February 8, 2002

“It is too bad, daughter, that you are a girl, for if you were a boy, I would educate you for the law-you would make a great lawyer.”

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

Law review article | April 30, 2002

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

Speech at the American Law Institute annual meeting

Speech | May 15, 2002

Sandra Day O’Connor Now on the whole, the United States judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world, but in the treatment and United States Courts of international law there jury is still out. Because of my exposure to a great many legal systems around the world. I decided to speak to you today about the need for more knowledge about international law and transnational law. Why does information about international law matters so much? Why should judges and lawyers who are concerned about the intricacies of ERISA and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the bankruptcy code, care about issues of foreign law, and international and transnational law? The reason of course is globalization. No institution of government can now afford to ignore the rest of the world. The importance of globalization should not be underestimated. 30% of our gross domestic product is internationally derived. We operate today under a large array of international agreements and organizations, the UN Convention on contracts for the International sale of goods. NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the Hague conventions on collection of evidence abroad and service of process. And the New York convention on horsemen of arbitrage rewards dimension only a few. But globalization is much more than these agreements and organizations. It also represents a greater awareness of and access to people, some places are different from our own. The fates of nations are more closely intertwined than

“William Howard Taft and the Importance of Unanimity”

Law review article | June 3, 2002

William Howard Taft and the Importance of Unanimity∗

This Term, the Historical Society has put on a wonderful series about the man who is widely—and rightly—regarded as this Court’s greatest Chief Justice. Through his recognition of the right of judicial review, John Marshall secured for this Court a role in shaping the nation’s most important principles: racial equality, individual liberty, the meaning of democracy, and so many others.

Learning more about John Marshall this Term has caused me to think about another great Chief Justice, who perhaps deserves almost as much credit as Marshall for the Court’s modern-day role, but does not often receive the recognition: William Howard Taft. Taft, of course, was remarkable even before he became Chief Justice—but even the presidency did not hold as much charm for Taft as did his eventual position on the Court. Mrs. Taft noted in her memoirs that “[N]ever did he cease to regard a Supreme Court appointment as vastly more desirable than the Presidency.”1

Mrs. Taft, however, disagreed. She loved being First Lady, and was a good one, at that. She was responsible for bringing the cherry blossoms to Washington, a feat for which I am particularly grateful. She also made a bit of history on March 4, 1909 by becoming the first First Lady to accompany her husband from the Capitol to the White House on Inauguration Day.2 She was a difficult woman to refuse.

Taft, on the other hand, was an unpopular President. His bid for re-election was

Copyright Law from an American Perspective

Law review article, Speech | July 15, 2002

HISTORY OF AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LAW

I want to speak today about the history of copyright law in the United States and how that history compares with that of copyright law in Ireland. The history of copyright law in my country is not so different from yours. For one thing, both of our laws have been written in English. Unfortunately, that hasn’t made either of our laws easy to read.2 More seriously, our two sets of laws share a common ancestor-the Statute of Anne, passed by parliament in 1710. Before the Statute of Anne, only the publisher of an author’s writings had the right to issue copies of those writings, and held those rights in perpetuity. The Statute of Anne granted initial property rights in literary works to authors, who could then sell those rights to publishers. The Statute also limited those property rights to a period of up to 28 years. Finally, the Statute of Anne only provided remedies against the literal copying of protected works.3

The Statute of Anne remained the law in the American colonies until the United States declared independence in 1776. Soon after, the United States adopted its current Constitution. That document established a national government with a limited set of powers. The powers of our national legislature, the Congress, are enumerated in Article I. Among the legislature’s powers is to “To promote the useful Arts…, by securing for limited Times to Authors… the exclusive Right to their Writings… ” 4 Under our system, our legislature-the

Vindicating the Rule of Law: The Role of the Judiciary

Law review article, Speech | September 18, 2002

The last two decades have witnessed a remarkable transformation in China’s legal system. Formal legislation has built a framework for commercial activity and economic investment. Other legislation has helped put in place the necessary infrastructure for a market economy, including the regulation of basic industries and the protection of intellectual property rights. A series of legal reforms has led to a reconstruction of China’s judicial system, and courts have increasingly become forums in which rights created by legislation are vindicated. Animating all of these exciting developments is a commitment to the Rule of Law as a fundamental means of assuring basic justice for citizens and foreigners alike.

Broadly speaking, the Rule of Law requires that legal rules be publicly known, consistently enforced, and even-handedly applied. Aristotle believed the Rule of Law to be “nothing less than the rule of reason,” balanced by considerations of equity so that just results may be achieved in particular cases.• Various approaches can be taken to securing the Rule of Law, and there is no right answer as to which way is best. One thing seems clear, though, and that is the importance of a strong judiciary in achieving and maintaining the Rule of Law. As Woodrow Wilson wrote, government “keeps its promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore, who stands at the centre of every definition of liberty, the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle

Foreword to ASIL Handbook for Judges

Law review article | January 2, 2003

This overview of international law should provide much-needed background in an area of the law that is rapidly emerging in ways that affect courts here and abroad. The reason for the expanded focus on international law, of course, is globalization. No institution of government can afford now to ignore the rest of the world. The importance of globalization should not be underestimated. Thirty percent of our gross domestic product is internationally derived. We operate today under a large array of international agreements and organizations: the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the Hague Conventions on Collection of Evidence Abroad and on Service of Process, and the New York Convention on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, to mention only a few. But globalization is much more than simply these agreements and organizations. Globalization also represents a greater awareness of, and access to, peoples and places far different from our own. The fates of nations are more closely intertwined than ever before, and we are more acutely aware of the connections. As we learned in this country on September 11, 2001, these connections can sometimes be devastating rather than constructive. But as we also are learning in the post-September 11 world, the power of international cooperation and international under standing is much greater than the obstacles we face.

The word “globalization” has many connotations, some positive and

Speech at dedication of Sandra Day O’Connor High School in Phoenix, Arizona

Speech | February 12, 2003

Student Sandra Day O’Connor Associate Justice was born in El Paso, Texas, March 26 1930. She married John D. O’Connor III in 1952 and has three sons, Scott, Bryan, and Jay. She received her BA and LLB from Stanford University. She served as deputy county attorney of San Mateo County, California for 1952-53 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster market center in Frankfurt, Germany, from 1954 through 57. From 1958 through 60. She practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona and served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965 to 69. She was appointed to the Arizona State Senate in 1969 and was subsequently reelected to two two-year terms. In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served until 1979 when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice at the Supreme Court, and she took her seat on September 25, 1981. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Sandra Day O’Connor All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. This is a really special day for me. Can you imagine driving up to a beautiful new facility like this and seeing your name engraved across the front? It’s quite a thrill. And I can think of no more welcome honor than that which you have bestowed on me to have this beautiful new high school bear my name. I grew up on a cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. When I was born, my mother wanted to go to a hospital and her parents were living in El Paso.

C-Span interview on The Majesty of the Law

Interview, TV appearance | April 9, 2003

Section on the current court system you say, it has been said that a nation’s laws are an expression of its people’s highest ideals. Regrettably the conduct of lawyers in the united states has sometimes been an expression of the lowest. >> yes. Yes. I have had a concern that has increased through my years as a lawyer with a decline in professionalism in the legal profession. and perhaps in others as well. But that’s the one with which I’m most familiar. and I graduated from law school in 1952, from Stanford law school. And we met in a reunion, perhaps our 40th reunion, I don’t remember exactly when this poll was taken. The questionnaire was sent out to all of us by class members asking a series of questions, including the question, if you had to do it all over again and become a lawyer, would you? Would you do it all over again? A majority of my classmates said no. And that shocked me. But I thought it was indeed a reflection of how the legal profession has changed since I entered it. And it’s more of a business today than it should be. And less of a profession. I really think that lawyers — people who study law, should expect to provide a lifetime of service to other people who need their help. Whether they can get paid for it or not. And that lawyers should be seeking more to serve than to make as much money as possible. With all of the resultant problems. When my husband, for example, first started to practice law, in those days law firms thought it was quite acceptable

Speech on legal careers at Paint Branch High School, Burtonsville, Maryland

Speech | May 1, 2003

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you. Now first of all, we have to get everybody seated, ’cause I’m going to be at this for a while there’s a chair there and there’s one over there. Need to there’s another one here. But I’m to work, right. So it’s Law Day today, May 1. May 1 was celebrated in the former Soviet Union as a day to remember the ascendancy of the Communist Party there. And perhaps it was in reaction to that, that we started celebrating May 1 as Law Day in this country. And it’s become a day that we care about, at least in the legal profession we do. And I hope other citizens do too, because it does give us an opportunity to talk about the role of law in our society, the role of courts and a fair judicial system. And that’s what I’m involved in, in my work today. And it didn’t start out that way. I was told you might like to know how I started out. I grew up on a cattle ranch in the dry, arid Southwest, it was half in Arizona and half a New Mexico we straddle the state line. And the ranch was quite remote we were 35 miles from and it was a life built around the small group of people who ran the ranch my parents and the people who were there. And we were not many in numbers. And the people who work there, the Cowboys tended to be single man who spent their whole lives there. We had at least four who stayed until their ultimate death as old man and spent respectively something like 70 years, they’re over 50 in three other cases.

So it was a small knit group that tried to

“Sandra Day O’Connor’s Supreme Legacy”

Interview | May 14, 2003

NPR Host for 191 years, this nation’s highest court was a men’s only club. In 1981. Sandra Day O’Connor broke the gender barrier. But when she decided to write her first book, it wasn’t about the court but about her childhood growing up as a cowgirl on the Lazy B ranch in Arizona, are now in a new book. She writes about the institution where she’s lived for the last 22 years the Supreme Court. Yesterday, Justice O’Connor sat down with NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg to talk about her latest work entitled the majesty of the law. Nina Totenberg Sandra Day O’Connor was not exactly a household name in 1981, a mid level appeals court state judge who had previously served in the Arizona Senate. She was by her own account, not exactly nationally recognized for her scholarship or judicial writing. So she didn’t take it very seriously one day in 1981, when she got a call from the Attorney General of the United States, asking her to come to Washington, DC See to discuss a vacancy on the US Supreme Court. Sandra Day O’Connor I wasn’t genuinely excited about the prospect of me being on the court because I didn’t think I would be. Nina Totenberg Do you think it was an affirmative act? A good affirmative act, but Sandra Day O’Connor an affirmative act? Well, certainly the president reached out to decide, I want to appoint a qualified woman to the court and I’m going to do it if I have the chance. And he did. That was out of the ordinary. Nina Totenberg But he had to look

PBS interview discussing her book, The Majesty of the Law

Interview, TV appearance | May 14, 2003

Unknown Speaker In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor made history, she became the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. But that honor is actually one milestone in a long and accomplished career dedicated to the law. In 2003, Justice O’Connor talked about her work and life with NBC correspondent Pete Williams. taped in front of a live audience at the Kentucky Center for the Arts, great conversations, just to Sandra Day O’Connor and Pete Williams. Pete Williams And then we begin with a passage that’s in both of your books the lazy be and the majesty of the law. It’s from one of your professors at Stanford, the great novelist, historian and biographer Wallace Stegner, you know the passage I’m referring to would you read that to us Sandra Day O’Connor Right now let me find out I should have marked all this. Yes, here it is. Wallace Stegner was my favorite American author still is but he’s passed away. And this is what he wrote, among other things about the West. You know, he grew up in Saskatchewan, Canada, and then moved to the west and he loved the West. He said, There is something about living in big empty space where people are few and distant, under a great sky that is alternately serene and furious. exposed to son from four in the morning till nine at night, and to a wind that never seems to rest. There is something about exposure to that big country that not only tells an individual how small he is, but steadily tells him who he is. Pete Williams When you grew up in just

Acceptance speech for receiving Honorary Doctor of Laws from The George Washington University

Speech | May 25, 2003

JUSTICE O’CONNOR:  Thank you, thank you. President Trachtenberg, Dean Young, faculty, graduates, and friends of George Washington University School of Law:
It’s a great pleasure to be with you today at this ceremony.  After all, it’s a day of joy for everyone.  You graduates have no more law school exams or classes to endure — (Applause.) — and I might say the faculty no longer has you to endure.  You have fame and fortune ahead of you.  Your  families and spouses and friends can look forward to seeing more of you, and your speaker is greatly honored by the honorary degree bestowed on her today, a degree which allows me, like you graduates, to always have a link with this great Law School.

I realize we’ve gathered here today to applaud those of you who will be receiving law degrees.  There are, however, several heroes and heroines here who should be recognized and with whom you graduates undoubtedly would like to share your glory.  I refer, of course, to the parents and perhaps spouses who’ve made two significant contributions to your presence today, your parents have anyway.  First, they had the brains which you   were lucky enough to inherit; and secondly, they probably provided at least some of the money you needed to sustain yourselves while you were here.

I congratulate your parents and I commend you graduates for your good judgment in selecting them. (applause.)

A commencement speech is a particularly difficult assignment.  The speaker is given no topic and is expected

Speech at groundbreaking ceremony for the modernization of the Supreme Court building

Speech | June 17, 2003

William Rehnquist Good afternoon. It’s my pleasure to welcome you to the groundbreaking ceremony for the modernization of the Supreme Court building 72 years ago in the spring of 1931, the work of digging the foundation for our beautiful building began. Four years later, on April 4 1935, the building was completed. The total cost, including furnishings was less than $10 million. And it came in under budget, with almost $100,000 returned to the Treasury. The runner vision project for which we break ground today is scheduled to take five years, and it cost 120 $2 million. when it’s completed, I hope that we will again be returning funds to the Treasury, but I’m not betting on it. William Howard Taft, who served as Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930, was the moving force behind constructing a separate building for the court. Although he did not live long enough to see it completed. Until this building open, the court did not have a home of its own. From 1800 and one until 1935. It occupied cramped quarters across the street in the capital, very much at the sufferance of Congress. And most justices worked out of their homes. having its own building was a great symbolic importance to the court. The building has been Captain excellent repair, and looks as beautiful today as when I first saw it, February of 1952. But after nearly 70 years, it’s overdue for renovation. I would like to thank the members of the courts building committee, particularly Justice O’Connor, who chairs the committee,

Speech at the opening of the National Constitution Center

Speech | July 4, 2003

John Street Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in honoring the 2003 recipient of the Philadelphia Liberty metal. United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day. Oh, Sandra Day O’Connor, a great American who has demonstrated leadership and vision and carriage in the pursuit of liberty. John Street Justice O’Connor, we are proud to welcome you to our city, and our Sunoco, welcome America celebration. We are particularly pleased to present you with the Philadelphia Liberty medal on this awesome and historic location, the opening of this spectacular National Constitution Center. Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, Mayor Street and thank all of you here today for joining in this absolutely wonderful occasion, as we celebrate both our nation’s birthday and the opening of the National Constitution Center here in the great city of Philadelphia.

The Constitution Center and independent Hall, together with the Liberty Bell, form a place that every American should visit. It will contribute each and every day to the reinforcement of the basic principles that bind us together as a nation and a people. And Joe Torsella, thank you so much for your perseverance, and for reminding us today that even supreme court justices make mistakes.

On May 25, 1787, here in Philadelphia, a quorum of delegates from seven states met in answer to the call from the Annapolis Convention to draft what became the Constitution of the United States. The delegates unanimously selected George Washington as president

Speech on women in the law to the Philadelphia Bar Association

Speech | October 23, 2003

Sandra Day O’Connor Thank you, Audrey, Kelly, for your wonderful presentations today. And what a delight it is for me to be here when you receive the Sandra Day O’Connor award that you participated and establishing 10 years ago. It’s great and to be and to be present. When so many of the previous Sandra Day O’Connor award winners could be here. And what a wonderful group have been selected. The Philadelphia Bar Association has been particularly kind to the female division of the United States Supreme Court. I’m truly delighted that you’ve established now an annual justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg legal writing award, it is exceedingly appropriate because Justice Ginsburg rights with a very, and I careful and no one among us doesn’t matter. So it’s a real special treat to be here today with Justice Ginsburg, as that effort is launched. And on hand, usually at your special events in Philadelphia is judge Norma Schapiro over here at the table today, whose career here in Philadelphia has spanned more than five remarkable decades. She has said that one of her favorite quotations is from the ancient Roman official Gaius who poignantly noted that one who helps the wandering traveler does as it were, light another’s lamp by their own, and it gives no less light because it helped another. And as the first woman appointed to the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, her live show in dark corners where women never before had traveled. And she has led her light

Speech to the Southern Center for International Studies

Speech | October 28, 2003

President White, Judge Dorothy Beasley, Secretary Sullivan and friends of the Southern Center for International Studies. The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark. A friend of mine tells the story of a bus driver who was becoming angry but still kept his composure when a woman passenger made many complaints during the trip. She was rude and made the trip very unpleasant for those around her. It wasn’t until the driver opened the door at her stop to let her off the bus that the driver said, “Lady, you left something behind.” She turned and snarled, “And what was it I left behind?” The driver smiled and said softly, “A bad impression.”
On the whole, the United States judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world. But when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law in United States courts, the jury is still out. A skeptic of the relevance of non-U. S. law to the United States legal system would begin by asking why judges and lawyers should divert their attention from the intricacies of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Bankruptcy Code, to the principles and decisions of foreign and international law.
The reason, of course, is globalization. No institution of government can afford any longer to ignore the rest of the world. One-third of our gross domestic product is internationally derived. We operate today under a large array

Dedication: Lending Light to Countless Lamps: A Tribute to Judge Norma Levy Shapiro

Law review article | November 1, 2003

DEDICATION

LENDING LIGHT TO COUNTLESS LAMPS:

A TRIBUTE TO JUDGE NORMA LEW SHAPIRO

SANDRA DAY O’CONNORt

There is a sad but common misconception in our society that time and energy contributed to others is time and energy lost. Rare is the individual with the perspective to recognize that we may give without losing, and that it is often in giving that we gain.

Judge Norma Shapiro is such an individual. In a career that has spanned more than five remarkable decades, Judge Shapiro has dem onstrated a sincere selflessness that is immeasurable in its impact. She has said that one of her favorite quotations is from the ancient Roman official Gains, who poignantly noted that “[o]ne who helps the wan dering traveler does, as it were, light another’s lamp by their own, and it gives no less light because it helped another.”1 And indeed, as we pay tribute to her extraordinary professional and personal accom plishments, we cannot help but recognize the countless lamps to which she has lent her light.

When she began law school in 1948, Judge Shapiro was one of only eight women in her class at the University of Pennsylvania. As one whose timing and experience was parallel, I can say with some confidence that this path sometimes was not easy. Nonetheless,Judge Shapiro thrived. She served as an editor of the Law Reviewand gradu ated at the top of her class. And in the years that followed, women who walked the same path into that predominantly male world knew that they could count on her

Discussion with the Council for Excellence in Government

Panel discussion | March 8, 2004

Pat McGinnis Good morning, and welcome. I’m Pat McGinnis, President and CEO. The Council for excellence in government. And today actually at a luncheon immediately following this discussion, we will present the Elliot Richardson Award for Excellence in public service to two outstanding public pioneers. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Secretary of Transportation, norm moneta, and we are so delighted to have them with us this morning. This award is named in honor of Elliot Richardson, who was well known to everyone in this room, I think, as a giant public servant, the only person to have led for cabinet departments and a decorated hero in World War Two, not to mention lots of other amazing accomplishments on his resume. And Elliot would have absolutely loved the celebration of excellent public pioneers whose radical moderation like his has led to amazing accomplishments, not only for government but for the whole society. Shortly after Elliot died on New Year’s Eve 1999, the council for excellence in government established announced the establishment of this prize to honor his legacy of imagination, courage and leadership. The idea is to recognize extraordinary public servants, who are role models for a new generation of public pioneers. And in our view, what better way to inspire young people to come into public service than to tell stories inspirational personal, true stories, of unusual journeys, of overcoming obstacles of commitment and determination with A little