iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mike Sacks
GET UPDATES FROM Mike:

Women Supreme Court Justices Celebrate 30 Years Since Court's First Female

Posted: 04/11/2012 10:15 pm Updated: 04/12/2012 4:44 pm

Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- The only four women to serve as Supreme Court justices gathered Wednesday night to celebrate Sandra Day O'Connor's pathbreaking arrival on the bench three decades ago.

O'Connor, who retired in January 2006, was joined at the Newseum by sitting justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for a wide-ranging panel discussion extending from the impact of O'Connor's nomination on the other three women to the state of the court today.

President Ronald Reagan, fulfilling a campaign promise to put a woman on the high court, nominated O'Connor in July 1981, when she was serving in relative obscurity as a state judge on an intermediate appeals court in Arizona. The Senate unanimously confirmed her nomination that September.

"It's all right to be the first to do something, but I certainly didn't want to be the last woman on the Supreme Court," O'Connor said, reflecting on the responsibility she felt as the lone representative of her sex among the nine justices.

Of course, she was not the last woman, and the other three justices on stage recalled where they were when they heard the news that O'Connor, now 82, broke the court's glass ceiling.

"It was a moment that one of those few in life where you remember exactly where you were and how you felt," said Ginsburg, who had established herself by the 1970s as the premiere champion of gender equality in cases before the Supreme Court. "I was driving home, turned on the news and the news was Sandra Day O'Connor," Ginsburg remembered. "I was about to cheer, but no one would hear me," she said.

Still, Ginsburg said she had to do some research to find out who this "great lady" was.

"I certainly wasn't well known in the judicial community of the nation," O'Connor said.

Sotomayor was only two years out of law school and working in the New York District Attorney's office when she heard the news. "I remember having conversations at lunchtime talking about how long it would take for a woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court," she said. "There were bets being taken whether it would happen in our lifetime or not." When O'Connor broke the barrier, Sotomayor said it was "an inspiration to think that more could come and that opportunities for us could grow."

Like Sotomayor, Kagan is a generation younger than O'Connor and Ginsburg and was in a position to see the first female justice as a role model for her future career. "I had just graduated from college, and I remember the announcement and I thought, 'What a stunning thing.'"

As a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall from 1988 to 1989, Kagan said she found O'Connor to be a "formidable person" committed to fostering a warm community with such niceties as a morning exercise group O'Connor founded for women clerks. "I failed to come to the exercise group," said Kagan, who preferred basketball. When O'Connor saw Kagan hobbling down the hall on crutches after a basketball-related injury, the justice told her, "it wouldn't have happened in exercise class."

Beyond jokes, the women also discussed the deteriorating nomination process for federal judges. "At the time I went on," O'Connor said, "it was expected that whoever was the incumbent president would fill a vacancy on the court. If she didn't have horns and look too frightening, they'd confirm the nomination."

Although the Senate's rejection of Robert Bork in 1987 may have broken that expectation, Ginsburg said of her 1993 confirmation that she "was the beneficiary of the Senate Judiciary Committee's embarrassment" over Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination hearings in two years earlier. The Thomas hearings, which ended in a 52-48 vote to confirm him, brought out a potent mix of racial, gender, and partisan politics after Anita Hill stepped forward with accusations that Thomas had sexually harassed her.

Neither Sotomayor nor Kagan, both nominated by President Barack Obama, received the broad bipartisan support enjoyed by their fellow female justices, and Sotomayor referred to the process now as "role-playing in front of the cameras."

"It's just a shame that it's come to a pass," Kagan said, that "Republicans feel they can't vote for the nominees of Democratic presidents and vice-versa."

The justices said they were thankful that civility prevails at the court, even as it has broken down in the other branches of government. "There was a time when the Senate was known as a gentlemen's club, when there was a great deal of cordiality, and that has gotten lost," Ginsburg said.

Not that a "gentleman's club" necessarily leads to cordiality. Sotomayor told the audience that she had recently asked Ginsburg why the court was more civil today than mid-century, when the justices' tensions would result in conference room fistfights and front-page power struggles. "It's because we've had women," Sotomayor said, breaking into laughter as she relayed Ginsburg's answer.

O'Connor was the lone woman on the bench for 12 terms before President Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg. Ginsburg, too, would be the only female for the three and a half years from O'Connor's retirement to Sotomayor's arrival in 2009. Justice Elena Kagan's confirmation in 2010 brought the number of active female members to an unprecedented one-third of the current court.

O'Connor nevertheless made it clear that three out of nine -- or four of the 112 total justices in more than 200 years -- is hardly good enough. "Maybe you haven't noticed, but I think about 51 or 52 percent of the population are females," O'Connor said, shouting the final word. "And I think they notice when their public bodies are dominated entirely by one sex. I think women care about that and they should. I really think that's part of the deal."

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The only four women to serve as Supreme Court justices gathered Wednesday night to celebrate Sandra Day O'Connor's pathbreaking arrival on the bench three decades ago. O'Connor, who ...
WASHINGTON -- The only four women to serve as Supreme Court justices gathered Wednesday night to celebrate Sandra Day O'Connor's pathbreaking arrival on the bench three decades ago. O'Connor, who ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 131
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
08:38 PM on 04/12/2012
"Ginsburg said of her 1993 confirmation that she "was the beneficiary of the Senate Judiciary Committee's embarrassment" over Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination hearings in two years earlier."

I couldn't have said it better. She's a gem.
11:51 PM on 04/14/2012
And yet you appear to have failed to comprehend what Justice Ginsburg meant by that statement.
12:27 PM on 04/12/2012
Let the supreme court represent the community. Since more than half of the US population is female then 5 out of the 9 justices should be female.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
It Must Get Better
I'd Like to ....
12:04 PM on 04/12/2012
All apparently to be wiped out should the GOP be in charge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robjh1
We Have Met the Enemy and he is Us: Pogo
11:51 AM on 04/12/2012
Women have made such great strides in society. Could someone please tell the teen starlets and grown women (craving attention) that getting drunk, barely wearing clothes or no clothes, being vulgar and sleeping around with anything that moves just to be seen or heard isn't the way to go. Women have fought too long and hard to get respect and not be identified by their sexuality and to have all this flushed down the toilet by a few (but the number seems to be growing) is horrible.
photo
steve11407
pending approval and won't be displayed until ...
11:29 AM on 04/12/2012
Sonia Sotomayor needs a lesson in proper dress for public appearance. The picture of her above is simply gross. If she has no more self respect than that, what kind of respect can she have for our Constitution?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
earthotter
micro-bio is a science course
11:34 AM on 04/12/2012
Really? You're going to judge her on her looks? She wasn't nominated to the Supreme Model Court. Totally irrelevant.
photo
steve11407
pending approval and won't be displayed until ...
11:53 AM on 04/12/2012
My comment was directed towards her slouch, needlessly exposing her gut and unbecoming legs. Why didn't she just wear shorts and a T-shirt? Like I said, she apparently has no self respect. It's not the indelible image I want for a Supreme Court Justice. Admit it. You're simply an apologist.
photo
kapalabhati
Lokah Samasta Sukhino Bhavantu
01:41 PM on 04/12/2012
J@goff.
photo
steve11407
pending approval and won't be displayed until ...
01:47 PM on 04/12/2012
Typical
10:58 AM on 04/12/2012
They're probably just upset because at the end of every session, they end up having to hand-wash everyone's robes.
10:48 AM on 04/12/2012
I can just imagine them talking about how men don't put down the seat and how we always leave our socks around and never use coasters. jk.
hellinahandcart
Your silence will not protect you.
11:06 AM on 04/12/2012
You can imagine that because it's the little things that tell you everything.
12:42 PM on 04/12/2012
exactly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjclear
10:46 AM on 04/12/2012
Is it really a coincidence that the female Justices seem to collectively exhibit more common sense, compassion and legal knowledge than most of the males on the Court?
10:56 AM on 04/12/2012
It would only be a coincidence if what you said was a reality.

Since it's not, it's not.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
10:30 AM on 04/12/2012
Sandra Day O'Connor ruined her legacy.
Anointing a president because she wanted to see a republican in the WH goes against fair and impartial judgement.
Shame, shame, shame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
earthotter
micro-bio is a science course
11:37 AM on 04/12/2012
That is the truth. What an ultimate failure, in one bad decision.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
11:49 AM on 04/12/2012
And nothing has changed.
If anything, the decision in 2000 has emboldened the conservative Republican judges.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
JacksonJones
Absit iniuria verbis!
11:41 AM on 04/12/2012
That is exactly right. It is very large, indelible stain on an otherwise distinguished career, but it is one that truly damaged the country.

I still can't understand how you can over turn centuries of election law like that, declare a winner based on personal preferences and still retain the full dignity of the office.

I respect a lot of what she accomplished and many of the opinions she wrote, but the decision in Bush v. Gore was the subversion of the republic.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
11:49 AM on 04/12/2012
It is horrible that their selfish decision seated a largely unqualified puppet into the highest office in the nation.
What could go wrong??
Everything.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sherzie
Former Republican
09:17 AM on 04/12/2012
Article reads: "Beyond jokes, the women also discussed the deteriorating nomination process for federal judges."

The problem is the deterioration of the statesmanship of U.S. Senators.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
08:34 AM on 04/12/2012
O'Conner is the symbol of what is wrong with today's Republican Party: there are no more women in it with the intelligence and grace as she still possesses.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sherzie
Former Republican
09:21 AM on 04/12/2012
They all left - even before the GOP policies were coined 'the GOP war on women'.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:58 AM on 04/12/2012
Do you think that these women get paid less than their male counterparts? I doubt it.
07:57 AM on 04/12/2012
Judges should be promoted because they are quailified not because of what sex or race they are. The supreme court should be the watch dog of the consititution not political tools for either party. The supreme court has been the most trusted part of the government, this should not change to promote by sex, race or political agenda.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tinarm
call me a proud FemaNazi according to Rush.
08:37 AM on 04/12/2012
No one is saying they want that, what we are saying is that 52% of the American public are women and women need to be represented as that percentage in each area of our government. If we had 50% of the house and senate we wouldn't see idiotic laws and bills infringing on the rights of women. As far as judges go I can't imagine that there aren't just as many women qualified as men.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nana1ellen
08:43 AM on 04/12/2012
It has already changed, John, ,due to politics. And, as much as I admire her, O'Connor allowed that travesty over the 2000 election. I have read widely that she has lived to regret it, but still.....................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
earthotter
micro-bio is a science course
11:49 AM on 04/12/2012
If she regrets it she should come out and tell the world it was wrong and apologize. Her one decision changed the course of history for the whole planet. And certainly not for the better. You are not truly intelligent if you cannot admit when you are wrong or have made a mistake.
Koiquoe
Have an unyielding faith in yourself
07:30 AM on 04/12/2012
Please don't celebrate too much ladies. The GOP just might pass laws that women can only serve as clerks of SCOTUS and not as justices.
07:29 AM on 04/12/2012
Thanks Sandra for giving us the Bush Court