>> COMING UP NEXT ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF HORIZON A LOOK AT JUSTICE O'CONNOR.
REMEMBERING SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR NEXT.
THIS HOUR IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO ARIZONA HORIZON.
I'M TED SIMONS.
TONIGHT'S SHOW LOOKS AT THE LIFE, THE IMPACT AND LEGACY OF ARIZONA'S OWN SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR.
SHE WAS 93.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR WAS THE FIRST WOMAN ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND IN MANY RESPECTS THE MOST POWERFUL WOMAN OFTEN THE O'CONNOR COURT.
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR LIVED HERE MOST OF OUR LIFE.
OUR SHOW ORIGINATED AROUND LIVE COVERAGE AROUND HER CONFIRMATION HEARINGS.
COMING UP WE'LL HEAR FROM TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO BOTH CLERKED FOR HER.
FIRST A LOOK BACK AT A WOMAN WHO WAS IN SO MANY WAYS THE FIRST.
>> REPORTER: I HAVE LEARNED TO DO TWO THINGS IN MY PUBLIC LIFE AND ONE IS TO HAVE A SHORT MEMORY AND THE OTHER TO IS HAVE A THICK SKIN.
>> THERE HAD TO BE PRESSURE TO BE THE FIRST WOMAN IN THE SUPREME COURT.
>> THE PRESSURE CAME FROM THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MEDIA AND PUBLIC ATTENTION.
>> I COULDN'T MOVE WITHOUT A BATTERY OF TELEVISION ATTEMPT FOLLOWING MY EVERY STEP AND THAT IS A LEVEL OF ATTENTION THAT NOBODY WANTS TO EXPERIENCE.
IT WAS VERY INTENSE.
>> REPORTER: IF ANYONE WAS PREPARED FOR THAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY IT WAS SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR O'CONNOR.
SHE GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL IN 1952 AND SHE GOT A JOB AT A LAW FIRM WHEN MANY WERE NOT HIRING WOMEN.
SHE WAS A POINTED TO THE SENATE AND SERVED AS A MAJORITY LEADER.
>> ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN HER BACKGROUND CONTRIBTED TO HER ABILITY TO SERVE AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.
>> >>.
>> REPORTER: SANDRA DAY GREW UP IN ARIZONA ON THE LAZY B RANCH.
WITH HER MOTHER AND FATHER HARRY.
>> SHE LOVED TO BE A PART OF RANCHING.
>> WHEN SANDRA WAS SIX HER PARENTS SENT HER TO SCHOOL IN EL PASO, TEXAS WHERE SHE COULD LIVE WITH HER GRANDMOTHER AND BE WITH OTHER KIDS.
BY THE TIME SHE WAS NINE SHE HAD TWO SIBLINGS.
>> SHE WAS ALWAYS THE BIG SISTER THAT COULD DO ANYTHING.
>> THE DAY'S HOUSE WAS IN ARIZONA BUT THE REST OF THE RANCH, ABOUT 250 SCARE MILES STRADDLED THE ARIZONA NEW MEXICO BORDER.
>> YOU COULD GO OUT AND LOOK IN ANY DIRECTION EVERYTHING YOU COULD SEE WAS RANCH, OUR RANCH.
>> THOSE WIDE OPEN SPACES PROVIDED WORKING HARD HAVING FUN AND DREAMING BIG.
ONE OF THOSE DREAMS WAS GOING TO STANFORD.
IN 1952 SHE GRADUATED NEAR THE TOP OF HER CLASS.
>> I COULD NOT GET A SINGLE INTERVIEW BECAUSE I WAS A FEMALE.
>> THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO ME.
NOBODY WAS HIRING WOMEN AND THAT CONTINUED REALLY FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS.
THAT WOMEN WERE NOT HIRED BY LARGE LAW FIRMS.
AFTER A FRIEND PULLED SOME STRINGS SHE GOT AN INTERVIEW.
HE SAID IF YOU CAN TYPE WELL ENOUGH I CAN GET YOU IN AS A SECRETARY.
WE'VE NEVER HIRED A WOMAN.
>> THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ATTORNEY TOLD HER HE DIDN'T HAVE A BUDGET TO HIRE HER.
>> I COULD WORK THERE FOR NOTHING FOR A TIME TO PERSUADE THE SUPERVISORS TO GIVE ME MONEY.
I MET YOUR SECRETARY AND SHE'S WONDERFUL IF SHE WOULD HAVE A DESK IN HER OFFICE I WOULD BE GLAD TO SIT THERE AND HE WENT FOR IT.
THAT'S HOW I GOT IN THE DOOR.
INSTEAD OF BEING STYE MEED BY OBSTACLED SHE FOUND A WAY AROUND THEM.
>> THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A TRAIT SHE GOT FROM HER DAD.
>> SHE LEARNED THAT YOU THINK THINGS THROUGH AND YOU MAKE A PLAN AND YOU KICK IT IN THE BUTT.
FAILURE WASN'T ONE OF THE OPTIONS.
>> IN 1952 SANDRA DAY MARRIED JOHN O'CONNORS WHO SHE BEGAN DATING IN COLLEGE.
THEY MOVED TO PHOENIX IN 1957 AND THEY STARTED A FAMILY.
THEY HAD THREE SONS SCOTT, BRIAN AND JAY.
IN 1965 SANDRA BECAME AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SHE WAS ELECTED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGE IN MARICOPA COUNTY.
FIVE YEARS LATER SHE WAS AN APPOINTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
SETTING THE STAGE FOR A MEETING ON JULY 1st, 1981 IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
>> PRESIDENT REAGAN AND I HAD A CONVERSATION FOR 20 MINUTES OR SO.
HE WAS INTERESTED IN MY RANCH BACKGROUND BUT HE DID ASK QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS A WEEK LATER WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALLED ME.
SANDRA, I'D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE YOUR NOMINATION TO THE COURT TOMORROW.
>> AND I WAS THUNDERSTRUCK REALLY AND VERY CONCERNED.
BECAUSE IT'S A VERY HARD JOB AND I DIDN'T THINK THAT MY EXPERIENCE ON ARIZONA'S COURTS HAD PREPARED ME FOR THAT.
JOHN WAS MORE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT THAN I WAS.
HE SAID OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
>> HE HAD NO DOUBT.
HE HAD NO DOUBT.
I HAD MANY DOUBTS.
>> I WILL SEND TO THE SENATE THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR OF ARIZONA.
>> I WAS DRIVING TO WORK WHEN I TURNED ON THE RADIO PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS COMMENTS.
I WOULD SAY WHO IS IT AND ONE OF THE COMMENTATORS SAID HE'S NOMINATING JUDGE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR FROM ARIZONA.
QUITE UNEXPECTED I BURST INTO TEARS.
THE ALL OF A SUDDEN ALL DOORS WERE OPEN.
ALL THINGS WERE POSSIBLE.
IT WAS AN EXTREME TIME FOR WOMEN.
>> SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, THE FIRST WOMAN NAMED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD THREE HEARINGS STARTING SEPTEMBER 9th.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EACH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CARRY OUT IT'S JOB -- >> THE SENATE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONFIRM SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR AND THREE DAYS LATER IN 1981 SHE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE.
>> RUTH McGREGOR SERVED AS A LAW CLERK FOR HER DURING HER FIRST YEAR ON THE COURT.
>> WHEN I BECAME A JUDGE, I RAN MY CHAMBERS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY SHE DID HERS.
SHE GAVE ME A GOOD TEMPLATE FOR HOW TO HANDLE BEING AN APPELLATE JUDGE KEEP YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS OUT OF MAKING DECISIONS.
>> WERE THERE DECISIONS THAT YOU LOOK BACK AND GO HMM MAYBE A SHOULD HAVE DONE X AND Y INSTEAD OF Z?
>> I DON'T DO THAT.
I DECIDED I OUGHT TO DRY TO DO THE BEST I COULD AND DON'T LOOK BACK.
MAKE A DECISION AND GO ON.
>> SHE WAS OFTEN THE MAJORITY ON FIVE FOUR DECISIONS.
>> MY HUSBAND JOHN AND I BUILD AN ADOBE HOUSE.
>> SHE USED THAT HOUSE TO ENTERTAIN COLLEAGUES.
>> BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS MADE SOME MEXICAN FOOD AND MAKE FRIENDS.
IF YOU KNOW PEOPLE WELL IT'S HARDER TO BE NASTY AND DISAGREE DISAGREEABLE.
>> THE BIGGEST CHANGE FOR HER OVER THE YEARS WAS THAT SHE GRADUALLY BECAME AWARE HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE SHE COULD MAKE.
>> SHE FOUNDED I-CIVICS IN 2009.
IT'S AN ONLINE GAME THAT TEACHES GOVERNMENT.
>> THEY NEED TO LEARN ABOUT IT.
>> i-CIVICS BECAME SO IMPORTANT TO HER.
SHE REGARDS IT AS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT SHE DID.
IN HER LIFE TIME SHE MADE A DIFFERENCE BY SHOWING US WHAT A POSSIBLE JUST AND WHAT IS GOOD.
>> IT'S BEEN QUITE THE RIDE FOR THIS ARIZONA RANCH GIRL WHO BECAME AN AMERICAN ICON.
>> BECAUSE SHE'S SANDRA.
IT'S SANDRA AND SHE CAN DO ANYTHING.
>> IT'S TOOK 191 YEARS TO GET ONE WOMAN ON THAT COURT.
THAT'S A LONG TIME.
>> AND JOINING US NOW TO REMEMBER THEIR MENTOR AND FRIEND RUTH McGREGOR AND SCOTT BAIL A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALSO A CLERK FOR HER IN 1984 AND 1985.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THIS TIME FOR US.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AND I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS DAY?
>> WELL, LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
FIRST, IT'S A VERY SAD DAY ON A PERSONAL LEVEL AND FOR SO MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY.
AND IT'S ALSO THE END OF A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR HISTORY.
IT GOES BACK MORE THAN 40 YEARS BY THE TIME SHE BECAME THE FIRST WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT.
AND ALL THE WORK THAT SHE DID IN RETIREMENT FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND RULE OF LAW AND CIVIC EDUCATION.
ALTHOUGH A LOT OF THOSE PROGRAMS WILL CONTINUE OBVIOUSLY HER PART IN THEM HAS ENDED.
IT'S A DAY OF SADNESS AND A DAY TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE PART OF HER LEGACY THAT DIDN'T END TODAY.
INDEED.
AGAIN, WE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT YOUR THOUGHTS NOW THAT IT HAS HAPPENED?
>> WELL, I THINK TO ECHO WHAT RUTH SAID IN SOME WAYS IS A SENSE OF LOSS BECAUSE SHE WAS SUCH A REMARKABLE PERSON IN MANY DIFFERENT RESPECTS.
SHE WAS A MODEL AS A JUDGE IN TERMS OF HER APPROACH TO CASES.
THE EXAMPLE SHE SET FOR OTHERS.
SHE WAS A MODEL OF A PERSON ACTIVELY ENGAGED AS A CITIZEN IN TERMS OF TRYING TO PROMOTE HER DEMOCRACY.
SHE DID THAT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
THE LEGACY THAT YOU MENTIONED AND EARLIER I THINK THE PRESS ENTATION THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO HER IMPACT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND HER PROMINENCE AS A LAWYER.
BUT IT ACTUALLY WENT THE UNITED STATES AND BEYOND HER ROLE AS A JUDGE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS HERE THOUGH, WHAT KIND OF A LEGAL MIND DID SHE HAVE?
AND CAN YOU SEE CERTAIN JUDGES AND CERTAIN ATTORNEYS WITH THIS KIND OF MINDSET?
>> IT WAS A PLEASURE TO WATCH HER ANALYZE A CASE.
SHE WAS ABLE TO SEE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WHAT THE CENTRAL ISSUES WERE TO DEFINE WHAT WAS IMPORTANT AND THEN TO KNOW WHERE TO LOOK TO HELP TO FIND THE ANSWERS TO THAT.
YOU SEE THAT OCCASIONALLY.
NOT ALL LAWYERS ARE ABLE TO DO THAT AND NOT ALL JUDGES ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.
IF YOU WORKED WITH HER AND WATCHED HER AND LISTENED TO HER ANALYZE A CASE IT WAS IMMEDIATELY APPARENT HOW GOOD SHE WAS AT GETTING TO THE HEART OF WHAT WAS IMPORTANT ABOUT THE CASE.
SHE COMBINED THAT QUICKSILVER INTELLIGENCE WITH THAT -- EACH CASE OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERIT.
AND THE JUDGE OUGHT TO DECIDE THAT CASE.
NOT BE THINKING HOW DO YOU SHOE HORN THIS INTO A VISION OF WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE.
>> INTERESTING QUOTE HERE.
BE INDEPENDENCE, FAIR VENTURE TO BE WIDE.
THAT WAS HER.
>> THAT WAS HER.
>> SHE WAS A TRIAL COURT JUDGE, SHE HAD LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE SOMEWHAT RARE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DID THAT IMPACT THE WAY SHE VIEWED THINGS?
>> I THINK IT DID AND BOTH HER BACKGROUND AS SOMEONE WHO HAD WORKED IN STATE GOVERNMENT AT EVERY LEVEL AND THE LEGISLATURE AND ON OUR COURTS THAT GIVE HER AN APPRECIATION IN SOME OF THE WAYS STATE AND FEDERAL LAW INTERACT I THINK TWO, I THINK SHE HAD A VERY WELL INFORMED VIEW OF THE PRACTYCALITY OF THINGS FOR EXAMPLE WHAT HAPPENS IN A TRIAL COURT?
OR HOW DOES LEGISLATION REALLY GET MADE?
.
I THINK THAT DID INFORM THE WAY SHE APPROACHED CASES.
>> AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS CASE GOT HERE BETTER THAN SOME?
>> YES, SHE ALSO UNDERSTOOD A LOT OF THE WORK OF JUSTICES IS LOOKING AT STATUTES AND APPLY THEM AS THE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED.
SHE KNEW HOW THEY HAD BEEN MADE.
I HEARD HER ONCE SAY THAT HAD IMPACT FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS.
SHE KNEW HOW MUCH WORK WENT INTO IT.
THIS IS WHAT THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT THE LAWS BUT IT ALSO MADE HER UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU SEE IN THE STATE YUT ISN'T ALWAYS ENTIRELY WHAT WAS INTENDED.
SHE HAD THIS OVERVIEW THAT WAS -- AS SCOTT SAID, PRACTICAL AS WELL AS THEORETICAL.
>> HOW WAS SHE TO WORK FOR?
>> IT WAS AN AMAZING EXPERIENCE.
YOU KNOW, SHE -- SHE LIVED LIFE INTENSELY IN DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS IN TERMS OF HOW SHE APPROACHED HER WORK AS A JUDGE.
IN TERMS OF THE ENTHUSIASM OF AROUND HER.
IT WAS THE MOST REWARDING AND GRATIFYING IN MANY WAYS.
IT SEEMED THOUGH YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T SUFFER IN THE WAY OF WINING AND GETTING 15 WORDS WHEN THREE WOULD DO.
>> ONE DOES NOT WHINE AROUND SANDRA O'CONNOR.
AND YOU DON'T USE EXTRA WORDS AND YOU DON'T MAKE VERBS OUT OF NOUNS.
SHE HAD A LOT OF RULES AND THEY WERE INTENDED TO MAKE HER WRITING BE CLEAR SO THAT PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT HER OPINION MEANT.
FLOWERLY LANGUAGE WAS NOT THE LANGUAGE OF SANDRA O'CONNOR X.
>> DID SHE ACKNOWLEDGE HER IMPACT?
SHE'S CALLED THE FIRST FOR A REASON.
DID SHE RECOGNIZE WHAT SHE WAS DOING ALMOST EVERYTHING SHE DID WAS HISTORIC?
>> I THINK SHE DID.
I THINK HER CHARACTER WAS SUCH THAT SHE WOULD HAVE EXCELLED IN ANY SETTING.
ONE THING SHE SAID SHE LEARNED FROM THE RANCH ANYTHING WORTH DOING IS WORTH DOING WELL AND FEW THINGS ARE DONE WELL WITHOUT A LOT OF EFFORT.
I THINK SHE CARRIED THAT INTO HER ROLE AS A JUSTICE.
SHE RECOGNIZED THAT SHE WAS THE FIRST FEMALE JUSTICE AND WANTED PEOPLE TO APPRECIATE THAT HER GENDER WASN'T A FACT IN TERMS OF HOW WELL SHE WAS GOING TO DO THE VOTE.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
SHE HAD TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT.
WAS IT A RECOGNITION THAT WAS FELT AMONG PEOPLE WHO CLERKED FOR HER?
TALK TO US ABOUT THE ATMOSPHERE.
>> THE ATMOSPHERE IN HER CHAMBERS WAS ALWAYS A VERY POSITIVE ONE.
SHE CERTAINLY WAS AWARE ON A LOT OF CASES SHE WOULD BE IN THE MAJORITY AND PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT HER AS THE DECIDING VOTE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WEIGHED ON HER.
I THINK IT WAS A POSITION THAT SHE ACCEPTED WILLINGLY.
SHE DIDN'T GO TO THE COURT THINKING OH MY GOSH MAYBE I COULD BE THE DECIDING VOTE ON THESE CASES.
BECAUSE SHE WAS LOOKING AT THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN PARTICULAR CASES OFTEN SHE WOULD COME OUT TO BE MORE MODERATE THAN PERHAPS PEOPLE HAD EXPECTED.
BUT SHE DIDN'T DO THAT.
BECAUSE SHE WAS LOOKING AT EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY SHE TURNED OUT TO BE THE DECIDING VOTE.
SHE HATED TO BE CALLED THE SWING VOTE.
SHE THOUGHT THAT WAS SILLY.
BUT A DECIDING VOTE WAS SOMETHING SHE WILLINGLY ACCEPTED.
DID IT SURPRISE YOU WHEN SHE ANNOUNCED HER RETIREMENT?
>> NO, IT DIDN'T SURPRISE ME GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HER HUSBAND JOHN'S HEALTH AND WHY SHE MADE THE DECISION WHEN SHE DID.
>> DID IT SURPRISE YOU RUTH?
>> KNOW SHE WASN'T IN THE POSITION BECAUSE SHE WANTED POWER.
SHE WAS IN THE POSITION BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING SHE WELL AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.
BUT HER WORK WAS NEVER AS IMPORTANT AS HER FAMILY.
WITH HER CLERKS SHE TALKED A LOT ABOUT NEEDING TO HAVE BALANCE BETWEEN WORK AND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO HER HUSBAND NEEDING HER.
WHILE SHE REGRETTED AND IT WAS HARD FOR HER TO LEAVE THE COURT, THE DECISION TO DO IT WAS MADE WHEN HE DECIDED HE NEEDED HER FULL TIME.
>> I WANT TO READ SOMETHING OF THE BIOGRAPHY OF HER.
SHE COULD BE CHARMING OR STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ROUNDABOUT AND SLY.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THE BOSSY O'CONNOR THAT WOULD IT TELL PEOPLE WHERE TO SIT IN THE CAR WITH THE JUDICIAL ONE RATHER THAN MAKING BROAD PRONOUNCEMENTS.
>> SOUND LIKE SOMEONE YOU KNEW?
IT DOES.
SHE WAS THE FIRST FEMALE JUSTICE BUT ALSO IN THE COWGIRL HALL-OF-FAME.
WE WERE LUCKY TO HAVE HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS BOTH.
>> FINAL THOUGHTS?
>> THE ONLY THING LEFT OUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HER JOB WAS NOT HER LIFE.
SHE COULD MAKE A DECISION ON HER JOB IN ONE WAY AND BE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN HER PERSONAL LIFE THAT WAS NO DISCONNECT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> AND THAT IS IT FOR NOW.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION ON "ARIZONA HORIZON" YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
♪♪ - Hello, I'm Alice Ferris and we hope you enjoyed Arizona Horizon.
For 40 years, viewers in Arizona have relied on Arizona Horizon for in-depth coverage of issues of concern to our community.
Post Ted Simons has led insightful public affairs discussions on topics ranging from state politics to national policies.
And now we're asking you to invest in this vital community resource that helps each of us better understand the world around us and how it affects the Grand Canyon State.
What sets Arizona Horizon apart is that unlike conventional newscasts, Arizona Horizon goes beyond the headlines and sound bites.
The program's format offers viewers an opportunity to explore all sides of an issue on subjects including politics,
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7sa7SZ6arn1%2BrtqWxzmisrGWjqr2zscyeZJynpafBbrbUrKuim5ViwKK6w6uYZpyRrnqwr86npaiqXZm2pr%2BMmqtmcWNiuqjGzaynaA%3D%3D