Transcripts For CSPAN3 Working With Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor 20240713

applause thank you. Its really an honor and a privilege to be here. I was asked to say a few words to introduce the next panel. I would start by saying something that we probably know. The court is a fairly powerful institution. It was not always so, one of the signs of how powerful it is is that you do see, in any president ial election, people say it matters who you vote for because they will pick the next Supreme Court justices. If you think about why that really is, the Court Decides about 80 cases a year. About 75 of them need to be decided but thats not the reason the court is powerful and not the reason people say that about who you should vote for for the president ial election. There is typically five or six cases in any term which is why we care about the court. Those are the cases that have truly Significant Impact on our politics, society, and government. Part of the reason that makes them so important is that the law runs out before you get to the decision. So how do we justify giving so much power to what amounts to a Monarchical Institution in cases like that . And is not acting so easy to do. One of the ways we do it is by who we appoint. Who we give that kind of power to. We look ideally for people who have experience in politics, who have been in a position where they have had to make these hard decisions with responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. In the ideal world we remove them from politics and the way we structure the court and they have a wisdom to bring on those cases when the law runs out. So that last bit when the legal justifications might take you one way or another, they can bring that to bear into the decision and exercise judgment, which is what we call them judges. In those five or six cases, its that kind of experience that matters. If you look across American History we used to routinely appoint justices with that kind of experience. We had justices who had been governors, senators, cabinet officials, people who had been in the heat of politics and important political decisions, sometimes at the state or federal level with real responsibilities and the consequences of what they did. Justice oconnor was the last justice of that ilk. You see it reflected in her decisionmaking. Part of the reason is because the court has become so powerful. It becomes difficult to get anyone through the appointments process. When she was appointed, and for all sorts of reasons, we heard on the first panel they went to someone who was quite unconventional but whose important experience for the court was not her experience as a judge but as a state legislature and the leader of her party in her state and somebody with that experience in politics. So what happened when the law runs out . You can see that reflected in Justice Oconnors opinions. You could see it not just in what she decided but how she decided. But nobody gets to see how a justice decides their case better than her law clerks. Not even her fellow justices got to see as close or as much got to see as close or as much as the clerks. Clerking is closer to discipleship than a regular job. You work long hours. Oconnor worked longer hours and most of us. You have incredible close contact with this person. You spend your time thinking not about how you can influence them, because very few of us have the arrogance at the age of 26 to want to push the justice in a different direction than they wanted to go, but trying to understand what it is that the justice needs, wants, or is trying to do. To provide the research, thinking, and argumentation that helps the justice shaper views. So who better to give us a sense of what it was that made Justice Oconnor the justice that she was. Who better than those then those in those key cases who did the work with her. So let me bring on the next panel. I think you will be interested to see the firsthand experiences of the people who had the opportunity to work as closely with Justice Oconnor as only her clerks ever did. applause please welcome to the stage our moderator, mr. Jeffrey rosen, and our first panel of distinguished speakers, chancellor ken, miss marci hamilton, and miss julie osullivan. applause ladies and welcome to our panel about the firsthand experience of clerking with Justice Oconnor. We are honored to have three extraordinarily distinguished scholars who also clerks with Justice Oconnor during her early years on the court. During the 1984, 1985, 1989 terms. We should begin by asking what was it like to clerk with her as she was still adjusting to the extraordinary role of being the first woman on the Supreme Court. Chancellor, we will begin with you. She was incredibly demanding, and incredibly supportive. And what a blessing that was to have early in your life. She expect the best of you but also knew you had a family. It was exausting and aggilerating at the same time. Professor hamilton, you talked about how she taught you to be a professional. Tell us about that. The thing about clerking for Justice Oconnor is that you learn how to be incredibly honest while you are smiling. You learn not to put in writing things that you do not want to read again. I will never forget in the abortion cases, i was very unhappy with Justice Scalias treatment of the justice and i really wrote it up and i wrote a response. We nailed him. That was my plan. And i hear marci so i went to the secretarys desk and i go to the office and she goes we dont talk like that. And i said i think we should. And she said no, take it out. So i took out all the strong wordage and left the facts. And i learned a good lesson. You can really disagree with someone, but you dont have to be disagreeable. Thats an amazing skill that somebody gets early in their career. I have to ask, after Justice Scalia said that one of her opinions cannot be taken seriously, she famously said sticks and stones may break my bones, thats probably not true. Did she find her barbs to be a little sharp . She found them annoying and really capable of being ignored. She is one of the people who understood that you do not get back to the person whos trying to taunt to you taunt you, you could really drive them crazy. She was gifted at it. She told me that she figured out that dealing with Difficult People she had four levels of dealing with them. You do this, you try humor at this level, try something at this level. And i started taking notes because i would never remember it. She was so good with people. Professor sullivan, she famously made chili and had the saturday sessions. Give us a sense of what it was like to have her chili and discuss cases. To give you a sense of how things worked, i was the fifth year in, these guys were little earlier. She came from the state court of appeals and she did not have a lot of experience in federal or constitutional law. In the court was hearing 150 cases a year, now they hear about 75. We were doing the third pool memos, she wanted every case to have a bench brief and we were doing the opinions. It was a punishing schedule, maybe you remember, the computer was only up until midnight and 10 00 to 10 00 on weekends. We were there every second the computer was up. So we would write our bench memos and we were expected to read each others bench memos for maybe 10 cases on friday night, we would get together on saturday morning and the justices would make her three alarm tacos or chili. Im a girl from new jersey, i did not know i was like what is this. Was it really spicy . It was good, once you got past the horridness for some people. It was not the tacos that were hot. I was usually in the hot seat. The justice, in my experience, tended to hire someone who was a liberal, a real conservative, and i think it was somewhat intentional, and two people in between. I was the liberal and i shared my office with a conservative, who was the real conservative. We had a wonderful time because we both smoked and drank too much diet coke. We got along famously, but i did get beaten up pretty thoroughly almost every saturday. I was only 27, i look back and i think what were you thinking. You had some nerve. But those sessions, she let us spar, and did not enter into until the end, when she gave you a sense of what she wanted. She was really sincere about listening to a 27yearold tell her about the cases. We viewed our roles as not as telling her how to decide it but to make sure she can make the best decision possible. We were honest about what the cases said, what the briefs said, we might present our point of view, but our job was to protect her and to make sure that she made the best decision, which included telling her how she had decided previous cases. Thats fascinating, that vision of her listening to the best argument on both sides and deliberating is very powerful. Chancellor, can you take a particular case and give us an example of how that played out and take us into her decisionmaking process . I would take a case from long after i clerked, planned parenthood the casey v. Casey. She genuinely listened to everyone and read everything. You had to give her everything you cited, and everything you read that you chose not to cite, marked with the pages with these huge book carts that she would roll in when you were preparing her argument and later with an opinion. Planned parenthood v. Kci spoke with her a lot about. That was 1992. The clerks were very sharply divided, as may be you will hear later. I guess i would say she was able to, when she had to struggle between her belief in the rule of law, and her intuition from her own background and experience were the hardest cases for her, and i would say that was about the hardest. Professor hamilton, we all want to hear about casey, that was a defining case for her, could you shed any insights on that. I would compare to kc the hodson case, thats from our term, where Justice Oconnor voted to invalidate an abortion regulation. The year i was clerking was one of those years where there was a strong conservative cabal of law clerks that snuck around and thought they were deciding all of the cases for the justices. There was a lot of fighting over this case and a lot of unhappiness that Justice Oconnor was going to go the way of saying you cannot say two parents have to both give to sense two cents for a teenager to get an abortion. But she was a stall ward. She did not care what was going on in the halls. She did call me and one time and asked me about it. And i said im going to be honest, im not invited to the meetings. There are not any women at these meetings. She did not like that. In the end, she did what she wanted to do, we agreed that by far was the best oral argument of the term. An absolutely fabulous oral argument, her kind, where the litigator for the reproductive rights project was saying things like the answer to that question is on page 152 and the second paragraph, the answer to that is on 845. You could see her going check, check, you are right. It was an amazing year, but it was the only year she voted that way. Professor sullivan there were two aspects of kc that were so distinctive to Justice Oconnor, her concern about spousal notification, which she felt was a paternalistic violation of gender equality, and the under burden test, which was so central to her jurisprudence. Could you discuss those or reproductive rights cases you had during your term. We did not have reproductive rights cases my term, and we did not have the unpleasantness because all of our desk cases were held. Those tend to bring out the visceral feelings of the clerks and can get really ugly. Our year was pretty benign. We had some reasonably important cases, we had an affirmative action case where she weighed in on whether affirmative action should have scrutiny apply when you are advancing africanamericans. That was very difficult. She really struggled. But one thing about the justice, people talk about her discipline and her work ethic, but people dont realize was how incredibly bright she was. It always amazes me, and i think its because her character was such that she made it look easy. But here she is, brandnew, deciding these abortion cases a couple of years in, we are wheeling in 10 foot tall stacks of books, and shes doing that between exercise class at 8 00, and dancing with john at 7 00. I dont know how she did it. In part its because shes a quick study and a hard worker and she was decisive. She gave it her best shot and did not look in the rearview mirror. That decisiveness is so striking. She had a pillow at one point in her chamber that said may be in error, but never in doubt. She heard the best arguments on both sides, made up her mind and did not look back. At the same time she such a model of thoughtful moderation, of balancing competing interests in a way that seems so rare and precious today. How can you reconcile those two features, the balancing moderation and the decisiveness. If you could give a specific examples that would be great. She was the common law judge, and thats hard for people to understand in a polarized era where people are trying to get their cases and their textbooks. She wanted to decide things on the facts, the messy facts that she had seen as a politician and a trial judge. She had seen how messy the facts are. In the second thing to say is that she was often in doubt. She knew they were hard cases. So she wrestled really hard with them. But when she decided she did not look back, because she had another case to deal with, and she pushed me hard to say have doubts before you have a decision but not until afterwards, if you wait until afterwards you are doing a disservice to people. She was capable of doing really hard things and moving on cheerfully and positively, which was not by nature but by upbringing. laughs a common law judge, what does it mean for Justice Oconnor to be a common law judge . What consideration moved her as she balanced competing features and give us the examples. She was really an incrementalist in a lot of ways. She was too humble to think that she could decide an issue for all time with one case. She was very respectful of the case and controversy requirement. I really didnt come to truly appreciate that until i started comparing her approach with her dear friend, Justice Scalia. For Justice Scalia, it was handing the truth down from high and it was supposed to be the truth for the next 20 to 30 years, which turn into the way of operating. If they decide a case they will not take it for a long time. She was much more willing to say this is the four corners of this case. Here is how i would decide this case. And im not going to pretend i know what is the next case. In that way i found her to be deeply fair and concerned about the case in front of her. Not the horizon, not how she would go down in history. I think it has been unfair that she has sometimes been characterized as being the swing vote. I have heard some characterize her as looking both ways to see where the power was. That could not be farther from the truth. She had a sense like deacon like a beacon. She knew where she was going to land and if nobody else agreed with her on the court, ok. But the way she operated often got agreement. Thats a fascinating observation, that she was a swing vote by virtue that she had to be in the center, but she would have had the same approach. She would say over the years that she had never changed, including when she went to the court of appeals, that the court itself had shifted right and became increasingly hard to remember what it was really like to be a republican, or the right wing. She no longer identified with that end of the political spectrum. Many justices have said that, stephen said he had never changed but the court shifted right and Justice Ginsburg said that she did not change and she felt the court shifted. And yet oconnors unique commonlaw constitutionalism was distinctively consistent. She was approaching cases in the same way at the beginning and the end and it seemed so striking and its a distinctive in its distinctiveness. Give us a sense of where that approach came from and her background and how it played out. Her incrementalism and her distaste of footnotes. Dont even think about putting a footnote in. Why not . I think she thought people were hiding stuff in there. She specifically thought that someone would put footnotes in three cases from now they could look back and go all yes in a footnote. Our year in our year we were challenged to not have a footnote in our whole term. And it was the fear that if she had not read it and did not understand the the impatience, she did not want it. And where her incrementalism comes from, i think in part it is her personality. Part of it was also her deep experience. She had experienced legislature, two levels of courts of appeals and judging. She understood that the world is a messy place. These issues are not black and white. Justice scalia could hold forth with a world encompassing view but she knew the devils were in the details. And she had a large measure of humility. When i interviewed with her, the one question she asked that i will never forget it she said these cases are so hard. They come up and almost every single one could go either way. They are so difficult. And she said is there one case where you thought we really got it wrong . And it was unconscionable . And i picked the case where she was in the majority. laughs what did you pick . It was a case where they said it was ok for a guy to get life in prison for three bounced checks. And i said i understood that different people make different judgments and its hard to draw lines, but we may not be able to tell it was a just sentence. But again, my 27yearold there i am telling the justice what i think, i still cant believe she hired me, honestly i was really obnoxious. Insufferable maybe. And that is one thing i admired about her, she consistently hired people who disagreed with her and listened to us. And you always knew when the shutter came down. But she listened to me far longer than i would have. And i look back on it and i think what patients she had, what a commitment to good decisionmaking. Because she wanted to hear from controversial views. And what a powerful definition, the willingness to listen to people who disagree with you. A very memorable example. I think she spoke about how her background in arizona politics led to her to compromise. And she would famously have the republicans and democrats over to her house and make chili for them and listen to both sides. Did that influence or approach . There was not a lot of lobbying among the justices, i guess i was earlier, but there was not i did not spend a lot of time with other clerks in other chambers. And i think she likes that. There was not a lot of logrolling that we saw. I know you know, but unlike most institutions in washington, the justices interact through written opinions, circulated to the other justices. It was the equivalent of an email message that everybody had to be copied on. I dont think that part of the legislative process is what translated when i experienced. What i experienced was her understanding that law is not a theoretical jurisprudence exercise. It comes out of the very challenging political process in which human beings that are not perfect try tos respectful of constitution and the balance between the states and the federal government. But she was very realistic that the individual actors and state legislatures, in the courts, among lawyers who were a mixed bag. That pragmatism and understanding of the strengths and limitations of human beings and of institutions was widely praised. Some have argued that she showed the virtues of having people with political backgrounds on the bench. She was the only one who have held elective office. Do you agree or disagree . I completely agree, the fact that she had Held Elected Office and had been in a state Legislature Led her to have respect for legislators that most of the other justices did not have. I would not i would look at the most important case of our term, though none of us understood at the time, was Employment Division versus smith, which was a peyote religious liberty case. It became an obsession. Tell us the story. She would have decided that case by saying ok, you are right, im going to adopt strict scrutiny, but hey, oregon, i agree that if a drug counselor uses illegal drugs, even in a religious service, they dont get out from under the criminal law that forbids the use of illegal drugs. So she had this common sense approach that lawmakers were to be respected for understanding the need to be practical and pragmatic. And she had no time for the idealists. When i told her that i was going into teaching, she immediately called the u. S. Attorney of philadelphia and said marcy is making a mistake and you should call her and hire her right now. How the maternity benefits there . I had to go to the interview. She said youre going to the interview and youre going to give both concepts and ideas. And i said a contract with cardozo law . I went and then i had to explain to her why was still going into teaching. The only x clinician accepted the only explanation accepted. I said Justice Oconnor, i am 30. I have to have my children. And she said ok. And she said maybe put it all off, if you years, have your kids. She did think some of us to be academics. She thought i should be a partner in a law firm. Another one came into academia and she had a fit, she thought he should be an investment banker. She was not wrong. About a lot of these things. You should have listlened. I should have. That is advised to have kids and come back, was her path. She came back to become the most trailblazing judge in American History. The first woman on the court. During the time all of you are there, she was the only woman on the corporate it is remarkable to remember. But Justice Ginsburg did not get there until 1993. What was it like for you to clerk for someone who was the only woman on the court and did those dynamics ever arise . It is funny. Everyone knew her name. Most of the general public cannot name the justices now. Rbg that can name it. Everybody knew Justice Oconnor. I walked in i was so scared. It did not feel like she was the only woman, because she is such a normal person. It is not that you do not think of her as a woman, she wore a lot of perfume and lots of suits and skirts and stuff. But it did not feel, maybe because she was comfortable i was five years in. But she was a woman who really could talk to men. Men were very comfortable with her. Justice powell left her. He would wander in and is hush puppies and say, does sandra have a little time for me . That was the only schmoozing that went on. She was completely comfortable in a mans world. And i never felt to me, like she was, oh, she is a woman. She just got down to it. She worked as hard or harder than all of them. She was smart or smarter than all of them appeared and she got her stuff done. What was amazing about her, was how disciplined she was, and what a clear vision she had for what would make her happy. Right . There was always an exercise component. There was a day of very hard work, hopefully with clerks she liked. Because she really did mentor us. And then she went out. She and john seemed to have a wonderful time, i have to say. They seemed to go out and we were reading about her in the paper all the time. Remember john . When he said listen up, sandy baby . He sent her a little, sorry, love rigo. The justice also had a very funny sense of humor. Yes i brought those roses home to my wife. I was a man who worked for her. And my wife worked at nih. And we had our first job in the middle of the clerkship. Our first child in the middle of the clerkship. It was a blessing to work for someone who understood that. She was demanding. But she virtually adopted our kid. She went to his college graduation. So she was somebody who understood two people in the marriage, both having professional lives and careers, and needing to not lower the standards of what she expected of either one of them. But that the job of a boss was to be aware about of them, and their whole unusual family situation paired i think that is why, she hired all because of people. Shes the first just to to hire people disabilities. She really hired a diverse array of clerks. More clerks of color than almost anyone. And i think it is because of her background as understanding all kind of people had nothing to contribute. She was also very generous. I had a child. This was 21 years ago. In our circle, it was not very common. I was not married. You can believe that the justice was the last person you would call. Her response was, oh good, you have to have more than one or you will spoil them. So you can spoil them. Christmas arrives and there is the justice and mr. Oconnor all dressed up with a Christmas Present for my child. And she called him a grand clerk for years. And was incredibly generous. Thats is why her clerks tend to be her clerks tend to be enormously loyal. She did work us pretty hard but she was in noras like gracious. She was very mothering. Did you get set up . laughs no. I have always called termite law mom. I have called her my law mom. I was blessed to clerk for judge Edward Becker who was the mensch of the universe. Then i got to clerk for my law mom. She was very caring and away you are not going to see in other chambers. Your career path she had already set out for you, which i kind of appreciated. Until you deviated. Yeah. But she was also great at saying, yes you must exercise and you must do other things she taught us that being a lawyer is not sitting in a dark corner 24 7. So when i interviewed with one of the big new york law firms after clerking for her, and a moment of, oh maybe i did make the wrong decision going to cardozo, i talked to someone who is associated and said he had never seen his Young Children who are beautifully pictured there in the daylight. And i thought, you know, Justice Oconnor would not permit that. You would have seen your kid in the daylight. And that is just who she was. She had family values. She believed in fun. She believed in making us do things when we are too tired to do them, and we all ended up appreciating it. She fed us on the weekends. I do not think theres any other clerkship like it. In the spirit of Justice Oconnor, we must end this segment on time. We will reconvene in a moment. For having us appreciate the judicious amenity of Justice Oconnor, please thank our panelists. applause applause welcome to part two. You heard part one. And your colleagues were so superb. And this was so quick that i did not even have a chance to ask you which terms you clerks for. Please tell us. Sure. 2002 and 2003. I was out too far. 94. Great. We heard about Justice Oconnors years in the 1980s, and you heard the amazing discussion. 1994 was the next decade, did she have a different approach to the job by 1994 and the one you just heard . I do not think so. I think she put a much new how she was going to decide cases. Not everything oks. But rather hurt judicial craftsmanship did not change. Rather, hurt judicial craftsmanship did not change it i think she believes in constitutional democracy. By that i mean it is fundamentally the job of the job of a judge not to be the lawgiver, but rather to be the law interpreter. So large part of that is the difficult task of researching the precedents that come before, to make sure youre consistent with the democratic expectations. You pull it back into the constitutional bank, if the democratic river overflows. But your job is not to disrupt the democratic expectations of the constitutional regime. But rather, to be the safeguard within which democracy works. I think that basic framework of judicial craftsmanship, she established early on. And she articulates very well throughout her career. Certainly, by the time i was there, 13 years in, it was pretty well settled for her. That is an interesting way to put it. Not to disrupt democratic expectations but to enforce the safeguards. I hear you say it she cared about structural restraints. Like famously, federalism it. But in other cases was famously inclined to defer. You see that in her speech as per the one that struck me a lot was a speech he gave about simone boulevard, the liberator of latin america. She talked about how it is the role of the structure to give the flower to democracy. She took on some of the myths regarding simone develop ours revolutionary zeal simone de bolivars rub legionary zeal. And took on revolutionary zeal. And took on constitutional excitations. Rather than trying to find constitutional nuggets here and there from opinions. She is a cautious and incrementalist jurist. Again, given just dressed j urist. By 2000, she is serving for two decades. She is joined by Justice Ginsburg. Her approach did not change paired but do you want to give a concrete example of a case, and it tell us how she approached it. And tell us if you think it was in the same way as your colleagues on the Previous Panel described . I think by then she had a large body of opinions that we could look to and get guidance from. So by that point it was pretty wellestablished where she was on certain issues. But, a case that really stood out to me, was the case regarding the 10 commandments. That was our term. The way she approached issues around religion and the establishment clause, i think was very telling. When you look back to her upbringing and some of the experiences that she had, she, i think as a young girl, had an experience of being in a church once where, you know, people went around and you had to profess your beliefs in a very open way. And she shared that story. And i think it rubbed her the wrong way. She did not like the intrusion on personal beliefs. And so i think she was always sort of looking for, how would it make others feel. How would it make that person in the room who maybe had different beliefs feel . And so she would sometimes share her personal experience. Not this is all in the context of talking about the case. That at the time when these cases were being discussed. And i think it was always interesting how she was very mindful of the effect of the courts decisions on different people and whether they would feel included. Thats complete fascinating. And she was famous for the reasonable observer test. Which was so quintessential to her jurisprudence. The common nation of reasonableness and focusing on its effects on others it introduced in that case . I should say that i do not have the pleasure of working on that opinion with her. With my co clerk. I want to be very clear. I saw that she had a good understanding, i think a common understanding with Justice Breyer at that time. It was interstate to see that relationship and how it developed, and the fact that they saw ice in a lot of these issues. Justice breyer so appreciated her pragmatism, and her willingness to find common ground. He often said how much he missed her. Allison, were there cases where they worked together and can you describe that relationship . I think what i recall i think what i recall about Justice Breyer was less the cases they worked on, but as others have talked about, the court can be kind of a cold place. There is not as much interaction among the justices as you might expect. But i recall it Justice Breyer as a sort of an exception. To that. I recall him coming down to chambers and they would talk. So i recall that, him sort of having, i love what the previous speaker said about Justice Oconnor, putting a human face on the court. I saw in her relationship with Justice Breyer, a kind of similar interaction. Two people who enjoyed getting together and talking, who know about cases, maybe an entirely different subject. It was good to see their interaction as well. Is their particular case your member you would like to tell us about working on . One i would highlight and springboard off something said in the first panel. I clerked during the 2002 ivan 2000 three term when the affirmative action cases were decided. 20022003 term. A distinction was made that i think there was a line in the justices opinion in greater talked about the importance of paths to opportunity, not just being open but appearing open. And i think we heard on the first panel and in some other things how it was, on the one hand the justice always said, a wise old man and a wise old women will come to the same conclusion. But i think she did feel that it was important for the nation to see a court where women sat on the court and participated in it. So the past opportunity was not just open, but it appeared to be which i think was a central theme in this case to her. So powerful. And the theme of women serving together, of course became powerful when Justice Ginsberg joined the court. I guess were there the year after Justice Ginsberg joined. What was it like to have the second woman for the first time, and how did they get along at the beginning . We talked about this. And she was very clear that she did not mind being the first. In fact i thought she thought it was the time. But she did say that it was pretty lonely the first 10 years. Right . So she very much appreciated Justice Ginsberg being there. Because of not only the camaraderie, but frankly, to take some of the pressure off of Justice Oconnor. Look, a lot has been said just not just because of the conrod are a not just because of the camaraderie. She is first because she is good. She is extraordinarily good. And that fundamental competence came out in her jurisprudence. Consider what wouldve happened had governor babbitt not recommended his primary political challenger to president reagan, right . She likely would have been running for governor. Likely would have one. From there, may well have been the first Vice President ial female candidate and from there, could have shortcircuited the next female potential candidate by a decade at least. Imagine how her greatness would have manifested itself, but for this. So she was always destined to be first. Sibley because she is that good. Simply because she is that good. This happens to be the manifestation of how she changed history by her effect on the back in history and human events could have taken a number of ways. What a powerful and important reminder of that other path she couldve taken. It is striking to think of that other path. By the time you clerked, justices ginsburg and oconnor had been serving for some time. Justice ginsberg has had frequently when she joined, Justice Oconnor was the best friend any justice could have. She appreciated her thoughtfulness and support, and their shared experiences. How was it manifesting itself and how to Justice Oconnor view and value Justice Ginsberg . I think she valued her very much. They both respected one another greatly. They had a little bit of a competition over who would get out the first opinion. laughs which was kind of fun. But Justice Oconnor, i think, respected her tremendously. And it was just wonderful for us to be able to be there and see that. That is remarkable. Justice ginsberg says in her in my own words book that Justice Oconnors advisor was just get the decision out as fast as you can, so you do not get a really boring assignment the next time around. But i do not realize they competed. So i have to ask the august followup. Who won . Well, my coker lark my coclerk is setting in the audience. I believe we won. laughs any insight on the Justice Ginsberg Justice Oconnor relationship . Just to echo what my coclerks have what my coclerks have said. That court reached a milestone quietly. They had been together on the court longer without a personnel change than any other court in modern history. And we, as law clerks only found out afterwards that they had actually convened a special dinner and they had all gathered at the court. They had invited justice marshalls widow to attend. And quietly celebrated that milestone. From my perspective, it was a special time, because you were there at the end of a court of justices who had, again, been together longer than any other court in modern history. What a beautiful vision. And they really, that group cohered very well. And all of the justices have talked about how much they missed her when she left. You have not given us a specific case from your term. Is there when you would like to share of Justice Oconnors approach . We had a wealth of riches our term. Because we have the lopez case. We have the term limits case. We had the racial gerrymandering case. We had a blockbuster. Wow. Without going into any specific cases, i do remember that the day after lopez came out and the Washington Post had an editorial, the masthead q k about time that there was a reining in of congressional power and returning summit meaning to the article one section eight, the jurisprudence. A great constitutional scholar larry was quoted in the New York Times that said this is one step too far. 50 years was the first case. This was one step too far, congress is daring the court to affirm its structural role. And we brought both to Justice Oconnor. And she said larry tribe and Washington Post . What did we do wrong . laughs thats an amazing list and reminds us how central her role was in defining the court. Lopez and term limits, structural and gerrymandering. All defined by Justice Oconnors court. Summit called at the Oconnor Court. What was it like for her to be at the center of the Oconnor Court . She just did the work. She was so hardworking, and focused, and i do not think she really cared for that. I think she just focused on each case and getting to the right decision in each case. She was so committed to that. And she was pragmatic. And she was all the things we have heard today. But she did not take herself too seriously at the same time. Which ties into the wonderful theme of humility we have heard throughout. Did you have that experience as well . And that is quite he ability to maintain when you are literally defining the law for the entire country quite a humility to maintain when youre finding the law for the country. I recall one of the panelists referred to the judges to justice as her cruise director. One time we were in a restaurant and a woman came up to the justice and said, has anyone ever told you that you look like, and the justice said yes, people, ive been told that. And the woman leads in and says, are you her . And she said, pretty much. her humility and working hard. I cannot ever, ever repay her for the lessons of quiet confidence. And that there is no circumstance, no challenge, no task that you are not equal to, if youre willing to do the work, if youre willing to work hard. I think her life exemplified that. And perhaps as much of the cases we have talked about, her Lasting Legacy is really as a person that she was, and the people she helped out she helped us become as her law clerks. Wow, what an inspiring life lesson, the quiet confidence that if you work hard enough you can do whatever you set out to achieve. What life lessons did you learn from the character an example of Justice Oconnor . Let me start by going back before my time with Justice Oconnor. And then take it from there. We are all, admittedly a product of our experiences. Justice oconnor brought a very special sensibility, if you will, coming as the first, as a legislator. And an expert practitioner in the art of legislation and politics to the court. She is by no means a dessa body had, but she brings her experience by no means a disembodied head, but she brings her experience and wisdom. That endures to this day. Last year the big controversy was the decision on partisan gerrymandering, where the court after 60 years, finally says that there is no justice of all standard in order to adjudicate an equal protection came in on partisan gerrymandering. If you read the chief justice opinion, he draws heavily on Justice Oconnors concurrence in davis v vannevar, a good 20 or 30 years before. That was her insight there, was driven primarily from her distinctive experience as a legislator are an apolitical practitioner, as opposed to a pure legal jurisprudence. Because once you admit that there is an equal protection claim, then the logical import is that there has to be some sort of approximation into one man one vote, some sort of approximation. Her opinion says, that assumption is upended, because not a single state in the 50 states has any system of statewide nonpartisan election. Everything is divided in districts. So there is no such concept of democratic proportionality within partisan come along partisan lines. Because our constitutional structure is not designed that way. And yet you apply equal protection to a purely legalistic lens, the measure of one man one vote or some sort of proportionality is a logical conclusion. But it is upended by the entire constitutional experience of the political system. That one insight it seems to me is an insight that is perfect for Justice Oconnor. And the court ultimately after six years saw that. That is distinct of lay an illustration, not only of her wisdom and judgment, but also her experience and understanding of constitutional democracy that we talked about earlier. She taught me through jurisprudence and by her example that you do not run away from your past or experiences, you make the most out of your experiences and learn from them. If the failure of learning from experiences that makes you who you are, the failure of your up ringing and the failure of her character. That more than anything is a life lesson i take for my time with Justice Oconnor. Powerful examples. Of her remarkable influence decades after she came to the conclusion in the gerrymandering case, and the lesson you took from it about the importance of learning from experience. I am really eager for your life lessons as well. What did you take from this great womens example . I asked Justice Oconnor at the end of my clerkship, justice, how did you do it, with three small children and we all know your story. We had a nice conversation. And she said, while i do not think about it, i just did it. And she said that is what you need to do. You just do it. Whatever you need to do, you just do it. She was so firm about that. I think it reflects what we have heard a lot today, that she was a doer always. And it did not fret over tough decisions or challenges. And just took them on, one by one. She always loved everything about life. Whether it was going out to see a new art exhibit, or, i remember, the first time i saw her and washington, d. C. I house sat for her. So i arrived in washington, id only met her briefly during my interview. What happened at a Mexican Restaurant in a strip mall in phoenix, by the way. After she picked me up at the airport in phoenix and took me to launch. That was where my interview happened. I arrived at her house in chevy chase. And she was a little bit impatient because i was a little late and i had driven from boston, so i had an excuse, there was a lot of traffic. She said we are going to be late for the movies. And i did not know what movie we had planned. We went to see a documentary about mongolia. Talk he talked about how she had just been there and about the food and the people. She loved to learn from new and different people and express everything to the fullest and at the same time, a balance approached balanced approach to everything so i think that is another example. That is another amazing example. Have you found that her counsel and modeling of the principal just do it has affected you . Absolutely. For now, it is just. I want in our remaining six minutes to give us a sense of what made her great. We heard of her discipline in her insistence on just doing it and how she applied that on the bench in willingness to listen to both sides. Why did all those qualities manifest themselves in this remarkable woman . I guess a whole article could be written trying to address that. I think a lot of greatness early spring from her unique upbringing. I think the selfreliance of notes uses, of hard work, but always in the context of humility and modesty and when i clerked for her, i also became engaged to my husband and my parents came to visit and a shared with her how pleased they were with my husband talking to them before he proposed to me, but she said that is all in good but no one talks to me about it. I got to my desk and said i think youve need to calm down come down. We have been married since then. I like that story because i think one thing is her investment in peoples lives and in particular, her law clerks. If anything, you wanted to be ahead because you never knew when she would come down and stand by your desk and say someone is interested in the shakespeare library, would you take them and give them a tour . That was not an unusual occurrence. She loved people and people loved her, so being in the chambers and seeing that and again, just her investment in people and selflessness, i think it was a rare combination with humility and selflessness is one of the things that made her great. Definition of wellbeing and how to lead a good life. Last thoughts about where her personal strength came from . I think it came from her backbone. She had strengthened john oconnor. He is always there and supportive, was never jealous, but rather celebrated all of them and that is a great comfort. I did not appreciate how important that is and you cant do it alone. She could have done a lot. 4 more items built up in a tire family, and entire nation without john support. Very well said. I thank you for acknowledging Donald Connors role. Last word in this super discussion this evening, where did justin oconnors personal professional come from. I think from her courage, her humility, and her family, she loved her family, talked about them fondly, and not just her personal family, but her clerk family, and she talked fondly about her grand clerk, and meeting their children, and she wants to know we were, going to be getting gauge to, judge improve of him, but she got really took an interest in people, people loved her for that, and thats part of what made a great. Her further eliminating, and bringing to life the personal and professional greatness of Justice Sandra day oconnor, please think our panelists. , in 1981 saturday oconnor was no need to be the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Text a Panel Including one of Justice Oconnors first leclerc, and a brain of congress, reflected on her legacy and historical impact, this is part of an all Day Conference commemorating the 38th anniversary, of Justice Oconnors senate confirmation. And was hosted by the Ronald Reagan president ial foundation and institute. Good afternoon. My name is good rn