Kent Walker
So, as you may have guessed, I am I am excited and truly honored to welcome to Google. Somebody who is a historic figure in American law. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the court as the first woman on the Supreme Court in 1981. Serve until 1986. With with High Distinction, since that time has been a leader in the effort to educate America's kids about governance and civics and we'll talk a little bit at the end of today's presentation about some of the efforts along those lines using technology to try and help educate the leaders of tomorrow on those issues. She won the Presidential Medal of Honor was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Obama in 2009. And in has more recently, as you see, attended our fat guy session and had a conversation covering a lot of fascinating issues with regard to trends in the law, the current situation we have in our country with regard to politics and governance, and a lot of other issues. So I'm delighted to be able to continue that conversation today. And and Welcome to Google Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Okay.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Give me a little background, if you would, do you provide occasional talks from people here? Just as like you have 24 cafes and you have X number of talks?
Kent Walker
We do we have, ranging from presidential candidates to authors to we've had chefs come through any number of
Sandra Day O'Connor
that's a nice idea. Have you had any presidential candidates yet?
Kent Walker
Not Not for this cycle. But we're looking forward to it.
Sandra Day O'Connor
I'm sure they'll be opportunity. Yes, a plan. Well now he could have made a simpler in truck introduction because at present I'm just an unemployed cowgirl. I grew up on a cattle ranch in a remote area. The ranch was half in Arizona, half in New Mexico. The house was physically on the Arizona line. So technically my parents were registered to vote in Arizona, and we were Arizona, but it was a life that was very different. My friends as a child were the Cowboys. We had about six seven who stayed year round we got more for roundups, we would get a bigger crew. But day in and day out. We had a regular group of cowboys and my parents and that was about it, and occasional visitors. We did quite a bit of work at the ranch on horseback and so everybody had to have several horses. available that we're there's you don't ride somebody else's horse unless there's a real problem. And no two days real life because every day on the ranch provided a different set of challenges and problems and they weren't just alive. We had roundups twice a year or once in the spring once in the fall, and during roundups, it took a month each time to get all around the ranch with the different areas you were rounding up and branding. So that was always a major effort at the ranch. And there wasn't a school nearby when I grew up. And my mother initially thought she might teach me she had been a teacher and she tried it for a little while and didn't like it. I don't know whether it was because I was a bad pupil or what, but they decided to send me off to El Paso, Texas. Her parents, my maternal grandparents were living in El Paso. So I went there, and during the school year, I stayed with my grandparents and went to school in El Paso from kindergarten through high school. And I got pretty tired through the, by the time I graduated of learning about Stephen F. Austin, and Ola, Texas heroes, the courses we had, and we did have them on how government works were pretty boring in those days, but at least we had those courses we learned in school, how government work and how it worked at the national level in the state level, and not too much about how we could be part of it. But nonetheless, it was a part of the program. And I then graduated and I didn't know that I should apply to lots of schools for college. I wanted to go to college and my parents didn't tell me where to go and the The only one I applied to was Stanford. Well, that was about it was in 1947, I guess kind of the end of World War Two. And all like young man had been drafted. We were off. So Stanford was kind of short of students, I guess. So they took me.
Kent Walker
Most of those Cardinal Reggie sporting Today was a
Sandra Day O'Connor
Stanford grad. And it was great. I lived it was the first year of it, they put women in brand or Hall and so I settled am in brand or Hall and got an undergraduate degree at Stanford took a class as an undergraduate from a someone everyone said was the most inspiring professor at Stanford. He was a professor at the law school. I need to audit occasional undergraduate classes. I took his class and it was really inspiring. I loved it. I didn't know lawyers, we were cattle ranchers as I told you, but I really liked what I learned in that class. So I had finished the requirements for my major in economics in three years. And I had a whole year ahead and where I could take anything I could have learned about Shakespeare and all kinds of good things. But I applied to law school instead. And they took me a year early. They took me early in the law school, which was a surprise and I went to law school, then at Stanford and finished that and three years in. Then I got out and I had met my future husband in law school, but he was a year behind me. And we decided to get married. And we were going to get married over at the lazy D ranch at Christmas time. And that was fine. But both of us kind of like to eat. We didn't have 24 restaurants. Hey, Andy, that meant one of us was going to have to work. And that was me. Now I had passed the California bar. And I wanted to work as a lawyer. I thought, okay, I've gone to law school. Now let's find out what the law practice is about. And Stanford bulletin board at the law school had all these notices on it, saying Stanford Law graduates call us we were here. We're a law firm, and we'd like to hear from you give us a call, we'd like to talk to you. There were about 40 notices I called every single one of them on the bulletin board, whether it was bay area or LA area or mid state. Not one of them would give me an interview. They wouldn't even talk to me. Why? I was way up there in my class. I mean, good record at Stanford Law Review. I will bet I was a woman and they didn't talk to women. About Our job anyway. And so I really had a problem because we didn't want to get married and we both want to continue eating. And so I knew I'm a young woman at Stanford whose father was a partner in a big California law firm. And I asked her if she would talk to her father and see if he would get me an interview. And she did. And he got me an interview. And the senior partner very distinguished man, look at my resume. Oh, mistake, you have a fine resume here. mistake, fine. But mistake, this firm has never hired a woman lawyer. I don't see the day when we will. And I looked sort of shocked, I'm sure. I didn't know bad. And he said, but our clients wouldn't stand for it. Well, there I was, and I really I still needed a job and I heard that the county attorney in San Mateo County, California right up the road from Reiner, Redwood City, that he had once had a woman lawyer on a staff and I. So I wrote him and asked him if he would see me. And he did. It's an elected position. It still is it was them. And I think you still vote for county attorney in California. So you know how elected officials are, if you're all glad hand or so glad to meet you. You might have to vote someday. So anyway, he was very gracious and we had a wonderful visit. And he said, Yes, I had a woman warrior here and she did a good job. I'd have another and you have a fine record Law School. He said, I'm sure you do a good job here. But mistake, we get our money from the county board of supervisors and I'm not funding to hire another deputy right and I just don't have the money to do it. And
looked rather heartsick, I'm sure. And he said, Well, let me show you around the office anyway, you're here. And so he walked me through. He didn't have many deputies. In those days. It was probably 15 in the whole office. And he walked me around, and I met some who were there. And he said, as you can see, I don't have a bacon office either. So I went back to the lazy be ranch to plan for the wedding. And I wrote him a long letter and the letters now in the in the County Museum, I think, and I told him all the things that I thought I could do for him if he would hire me. And I said, Oh, no, you don't have any money. But I'll work for you for nothing. You don't have to pay me anything. Until such time it's your office gets a little money and you can afford to pay me something, it doesn't matter. And he said, Well, I don't have an office to put anybody he told me that when I was there. And I said, I know who explained that. You don't have an empty office either. But I met your secretary and she's very nice. And there's room in there to put a second desk if she wouldn't object.
That was my first job as a lawyer, no pay. And I put my desk in with the secretary. Well, you know what, I loved my job. I got the most interesting questions to answer legal issues. And I got the right responses to the county officials or boards or commissions and try to solve their legal problems. And it was great. I really liked my job and my classmates, the man all had good paying jobs and law firms and California. They were happy. But they were just taking depositions and doing research and I was answering real questions. So I liked my job. And I guess I was there about four months I'd have to look at records to see about that long when that county attorney was appointed judge of the county when he was thrilled, and we were all so happy for him, that was a good thing. And that meant that it turned out my supervisor was then named county attorney till the next election, and I'd opened up a little money for a salary and an office to put a desk. So that's how I got started in this neck of the woods where you are right up the road. And I loved my job and it was a good start. So anyway, I ended up as you probably know, I'm going to make this very short, in Arizona. My husband and I married, he was drafted it was the Korean War, and he wasn't sent to Korea. He was sent to Germany. And we lived there for three and a half years and we just stayed over there until our money ran out because we like to ski and so we just stayed in Austria, kids feel. And when the money ran out, we came back and my husband started looking for a job as a lawyer. And he ended up taking a position in a wonderful law firm in Phoenix, Arizona. So we moved to Phoenix and that became, again, my home, Arizona. And to make it short, I had to open. Nobody in 1957. In Arizona, none of the law firms would hire a woman, we were back to the same thing. But I opened a law office in a suburb of Phoenix with a young man from Massachusetts who didn't know anybody in Arizona, so we just opened up and did whatever we can get. And it wasn't that kind of thing usually heard in the US Supreme Court, but it was all right. We took a lot of criminal appointments, they helped pay the rent. And that's what I did, and I ended up over the years having Three children and working in all three branches of Arizona state government. I was in the Attorney General's Office for some years, which I lived in an after I my private practice. And I became a legislator. I was in the Arizona State Senate for a while and my colleagues elected me Majority Leader of the Senate. And that was the first time in the united states that a woman held an elective, held a leadership posts in a legislature turned out and so that was an interesting position to add. And I thought I was getting too far removed from the law and I'd better get back to it. In those days, Arizona elected its judges. And while I was in the Arizona legislature, I co sponsored a constitutional amendment to go to merit selection of the appellate judges and the judges in the major counties. And that was controversial at the time, but I didn't think we ought to be electing judges. I still think that's the most state, Arizona pass that constitutional change by a very narrow margin. And we've had years now in Arizona, with that system in place, and it has produced very fine judges and a much better system. And I've spent a lot of time since my retirement, telling people all over the country don't have popular election of your judges use a merit selection system. Anyway, I at the proposition that I co sponsored past, but it hadn't been implemented yet. And I decided I'd better get back to the law. And maybe I want to be a judge and I had to run for it in a popular election. The thing I don't approve of
so I was able to prove to my satisfaction that it is a bad way to select judges. But I got approved and so I served as a trial court judge in Arizona. And then I had maintained an interest in all kinds of Arizona activities. And I was thinking actually, of running for governor of Arizona. And the man on the Democratic side who was running was a man named Bruce Babbitt. Remember him? And he was pretty good guy. But he was going to run for governor and he was afraid I would run against him, I think. And so he appointed me to the Arizona Court of Appeals, so I'd be out of the way. Well, it worked because I had these children at home and it was kind of hard to be away from home, which it would require if you were running for a statewide office. So I took the appellate court appointment I did not run for governor. And after a couple of years, I got a phone call from the Ronald Reagan Administration asking me to come back to Washington and talk about a vacancy. They didn't say what one. But there happened to be a vacancy on the US Supreme Court. And ronald reagan in campaigning, didn't think he was doing too well with women voters, and he had said in the campaign, now, if I'm elected president, and if I get a chance to fill a vacancy on the US Supreme Court, I'd like to put a woman on the court. Well, he hadn't been in office after his election more than about four months, when justice Potter Stewart retired, stepped down, and there was a vacancy. And so President Reagan then had to figure out whether there was a so called qualified woman to put on the Supreme Court There were very few women judges in those days Republican or Democrat. Really very few. I don't think the President had a wide range of options. But in any event, Ronald Reagan is, you know, love to ride horses. He liked ranch life. That was when he really liked fact there's something a cola, Reagan ranch right down the coast of close to the coast. And I think what he liked about me was that I grew up on a ranch and rode horses. I think that was the deal. I don't know that they have anything to do with my legal ability, I'm not sure. But anyway, I was asked to serve on the Supreme Court and that did open positions for women, not only in the United States, but around the world. It had a profound impact far beyond what I would have predicted. And that was a good thing. Because women just hadn't been given many chances until that happened. And since then, it has helped not only in this country, but in countries around the world. So I served on the Supreme Court for 25 years. My husband developed Alzheimer's, don't get it, if you can help it, of course, there's no way to prevent it yet, and we don't know at least. And he reached the point where he needed full time care in a nursing home and I wanted him back in Arizona for two of our three sons lived so he could have visits from family. And at that point, I decided I better step down from the court, which I did. And in that intervening time, I was kind of used to working I've done it, most of my life is you've just heard and I was hearing a huge amount of criticism about judges, we all were on the court people were calling them godless secular humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us and many objections to judges from all over the country. And so with some of my colleagues on the Supreme Court, we organized the conference at Georgetown Law School and invited some very interesting, thoughtful leaders from all over the United States to come to that conference. And we had a really good program designed to try to explore what was being said about judges. Why was it being said, Why was this problems so acute. And
the conclusion of these intelligent people who participated in that conference, at the end of the day was its lack of education and under Standing about our government, people just don't have a good enough picture of the system of government we have and what goes into it and what's going on. And I thought, well, what can we do about it? And I got some of my former colleagues on the court together and a couple of other advisors. And we decided to try to start a website to be available to deal with the judicial branch. That was what I was hearing most of. And I thought maybe we could teach people something about the judicial branch out what it consists of, what are the people, what do they do? How do they do it? What do we think? So we got that setup. And it wasn't too long before our little organizing group and I felt, you know, it's silly to just talk about the judicial branch because what we see among young people, is lack of education about any part of our government. So we expanded it to all three. And it's now on a website, iCivics.org. And that brings us to today. So
Kent Walker
so so let's come back to iCivics toward toward the end of the hour. I want to focus in on your 25 years on the court for a moment if I could. You were rare, if not unique, and in recent years and coming to the core was such a wide range of experiences from the from the ranch from your service and state government, not having spent decades on a federal court of appeals. And as perhaps as a result of that your your voice was a pivotal one in almost every sense while you were on the court, leading some to call it the O'Connor court for many years of your service.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, that's an exaggeration.
Kent Walker
Do you think that your unique experiences whether you know from from the ranch as a Westerner, to some degree, there were a number of people from the west coast during your service out there? Did it lead to a more pragmatic approach to judging or otherwise influenced you?
Sandra Day O'Connor
I don't know. I don't like to try to evaluate my own service and my own work. I don't think any of us can evaluate ourselves very accurately. But I think I do tend to consider the practical consequences of a decision if you decide best and so in the following way, what are the practical consequences of that in a future? What how does that affect this that the other thing I did like to think through those things, and I think probably that's a good thing to do, rather than just make some abstract legal decision without considering the practical consequences of the decision.
Kent Walker
Now, the nomination process This has become very politicized. You refer to some of the challenges around electing judges in your opening remarks. I understand that your advice to Justice Kagan was to be prepared for a very difficult confirmation process. Can you talk a little bit about your thoughts about how the confirmation process has changed from the days that you went through it to today?
Sandra Day O'Connor
I was fortunate when I was nominated. It was 1981. And when I was nominated, the two senators from Arizona, one was a Republican, and one was a Democrat. I knew them both and knew them well. And they both immediately that very day, spoke out in public and to the press and to everybody saying, oh, Sandra O'Connor. I know her, I like her. That's a good choice. I'll support her. So that made a huge difference from day one. It meant that in my confirmation hearings, We were unlikely to have some huge battle between Republicans and Democrats over that appointment. And the other thing is, I frankly think the senators were a little nervous about voting against the first woman nominee. I mean, what would that do to their constituents who were female? Would they resent it? I suspect I don't know this for a fact. My senses that that caused members of the Senate at that time to be cautious before casting a no vote. And the result is I was confirmed 99 to nothing. Now, the one who wasn't there was max baucus, the Senator from Montana. And he wrote me a nice letter and sent me a copy of a river runs through it and said he was sorry he wasn't there, and he would have voted for me been so happy.
Kent Walker
Now, are you comfortable sharing with us, of the many decisions you participate in? The ones you're proudest of or not
Sandra Day O'Connor
going to do,
Kent Walker
though? Anything in hindsight, you would have done differently?
Sandra Day O'Connor
I don't know. And I never looked back. I mean, my policy on that court was to work as hard as I could, with every case, we agreed to do everything I could to find out the precedents on both sides and the history of that concept of law and find out everything I could and make the best decision, I thought I could make the decision and not look back. Now, I don't know about you and your work, but it seems to me you ought to put the work and at the front end, decided and go on. So that's what I did. Now, and I'm still not looking back
Kent Walker
So let me ask you, as somebody who authored some of the most important decisions of the court during that period on intellectual property law, bringing home to Google a little bit, including the face decision, which was a decision generally that held that you can't get a copyright when there's no creativity in the work on a phone book, for example. This was a unanimous decision. Yes. Which is an important aspect of this. Any we seem to have have moved to some degree, we see lots of software patents and other claims. How do you think about the balance between incentive innovation through these government granted monopolies, and giving the freedom to to create new things that aren't protected?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, I think the issues are the same as they were in Feist. I mean, you have to start with the fact that you're going to have to make a decision of federal law and in that case, constitutional law, something that would be in place, presumably for a very long time and affect all kinds of things. So You wanted to feel comfortable with the legal principles you were expanding and hope that you're deciding it correctly for future years, and I still feel the same way. Like Feist was correctly decided. That's the way.
Kent Walker
Yeah. Now, you talked a little bit about the process of judging. Can you in the abstract, tell us a little bit with that? How often, for example, to the oral arguments matter to your decision? What's the
Sandra Day O'Connor
most of what you find out about a case? You find out before the oral argument, you do research, and you get your law clerks to do massive amounts of research on the legal issue. If there are helpful law review articles that have been written on the subject, this is often the case get them and read them, see what other scholars have had to say about it and do your own analysis and we get your clerks to help you analyze those issues to bring up everything, make them think the have in the way of questions about it. And when by the time you go to the oral argument, you have a tentative idea of how you think that ought to be resolved. You're not going into the oral argument, empty headed. You've got an idea already what you think might or sure to happen. And you are helped also by the fact that the parties to the case after file written arguments in something called briefs. I don't know why they're called briefs because they are brief. We have page limits, or maybe endless. Thank God, we have page limits, but they are long written arguments, setting out the views and analysis of the parties to the case. And the supreme court does something else that not every high court and other countries does. We allow other interests trusted entities and individuals to file friend of the court briefs, they're called Abacus briefs, in addition to the briefs of the parties, and somebody wanting to file on files a petition with the court, asking permission to file an amicus brief and if there are no objections, and it's a timely request, the court allows it. In many of the tough cases, those involving some new principle of law, you're in having huge stack of Damocles like that. You have a lot of things to read in before you go to the oral argument. And so when you go to the oral argument, the justices are probably 80% of the way to being able to reach a decision and they're very well informed and you use it to just kind of explore the x, how far the party would go who's arguing in other related areas and situations and how they defend against tough questions, you can ask them some. And the hour for oral argument goes by in a hurry. Now we've got something unusual coming up with this present term of the court. You've probably read a little bit about the medical care bill that was passed a year or so ago. Right. The Obama medical care legislation and different legal questions were raised concerning different aspects of that legislation was very complicated legislation, and there were cases filed in several of the Federal Circuit courts. I mean, in the trial courts and then on up to the Federal Circuit, appellate courts, dealing with that health care legislation and several at least Four or five of them have decided cases about it. And there are conflicting holdings out there so that US Supreme Court has taken a case it will be argued in the next three months sometime I don't know what month or when. And it presents many issues in connection with this law. And the court has already allowed five and one half hours for oral argument met case. That is astounding. That never happened in the 25 years I was there or any other time, I think, well, in the early days, they had unlimited URL or even, but once they started limiting the time, once in a while, the court would allow extended argument, but never anything like that. So I'm just looking forward to that. In fact, I wouldn't mind being back there and seeing part of the five hours myself, but we're really going to have a session about that healthcare bill.
Kent Walker
So do an issues like this I mean rain starting with with Roe v. Wade, there's been an awful lot of press attention in some cases, politicization of the the process around the decision making of the court. Has that press attention either on political issues or the concept of the swing vote, change the decision making processes that
Sandra Day O'Connor
you hope it doesn't it shouldn't there's no reason why you are not there to decide the case based on your impression as a judge of public opinion. I mean, come on. It's decided on the basis of legal precedent, and the text of particular provisions of the law that have been enacted, and the provisions of the constitution that are said to apply. That's the basis for the decision not public opinion.
Kent Walker
So given on the one hand, the concern about preserving the integrity of the Judging process, and then the other your commitment to creating more transparency, more visibility, more understanding of the judiciary. Look, what do you think about cameras in the courtroom and in the
Sandra Day O'Connor
court issues? Its opinions, the majority and the dissenting and that concurring opinions, every word of them is available to the public immediately. Immediately, if you want to hear what the Court has said, in this case, you will get a copy of it. Now, the oral arguments themselves are recorded. And you can hear those tape recordings, at least by the next day that's available. There is kind of a demand largely coming from members of Congress saying Oh, the court oughta have cameras in the court well, so that the public can see these arguments on TV and There is perhaps something to be said on that side, I'm sure of areas. But the court has never allowed cameras in the supreme court room. They're not even allowed when a justice and new justice this morning and when I took my oath is the first woman and 191 years to be on the court. There was no camera. We survived it, didn't we? IB it in the nation via it was okay. There were plenty of other pictures. So I don't have any idea whoever the president court will allow cameras for a bat case. If it doesn't one case, they're going to have to do it brothers sighs. So at least until now, the court has been pretty clear that it wasn't interested in having cameras in the courtroom.
Kent Walker
Let me shift up. It's a little bit. It Google, you obviously were, as you alluded to, as not only the first woman on the court, but in inspiration for a generation of women coming up not only in the law, but in a lot of different fields. It's an issue At Google we take seriously in terms of trying to encourage more women to get more involved in science and technology as well as other fields. What advice would you have for young women coming up today about how to be successful about how to how to follow in your footsteps or branch out in different directions?
Sandra Day O'Connor
I have advice that I give law students if I have a chance, I tell them, they have to learn how to disagree agreeably. Okay. Matt applies to all of you too. It's fine to have disagreements on policy, on legal issues on whatever it is, but do it agreeably I do not think we are ever benefited by shouting and yelling. Now I just read a biography. I think there was a guy down the road name's Steve Jobs or something and I What I read about that and the technique of yelling at people I did not like to read. I did not like to see, I really don't think that's the way to solve problems. I think you have to have reasoned discussion, not shouting matches. And I strongly believe that's the best practice.
Kent Walker
Now, obviously, we now have three women on the court. And yet some have said that that's we've seen it to some degree and that on one measure of diversity, but by other measures, the court is not as diverse as it could be.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, never looked the only nine of them. How many states do we have? 50. You're not gonna have 50 members of the court and one from every state. That's ridiculous. The court isn't set up that way. I don't think we should push for a larger court. It's just more complicated. I think nine has been a pretty good number. Now, there aren't enough Stanford graduates Express Perhaps but too many from Harvard. How many are you for? Are you from Harvard? Well, not many. We're okay out here on the west coast. But anyway, it's some. I you can't make the Supreme Court representative in the sense that you would if you were designing a legislative body, it's not. And your camp. What was the Don't worry about it. You just want good, qualified people.
Kent Walker
Is there is there an impact from diversity in the conversations when you when you go back into chambers, or you have the debates? What's the value of diversity in that context?
Sandra Day O'Connor
The only thing that I really saw that was a help in having women back there. In general, I mean, just the concept women in general as opposed to how qualified the individual is, that's what matters smart woman is as helpful as a smart man. Okay. And it seems to me that in today's world, that our citizens, our population slightly here, over half are female. And I happen to think that women, residents and citizens of this state and this country want to see some women in the different institutions of government in front of us. I know I did. I f