Host
We are talking in the conference room at the supreme court on a very busy day before the end of session, with many opinions being delivered today. I am wondering how often you come back to court.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
my calendar has been rather haphazard since my retirement. I have not tried to set a specific schedule singing that i will be in Washington, d. C. One month and then Arizona another. I have, instead, accepted various specific engagements and have adjusted my calendar accordingly. In an ideal world, i think i would do it a little differently. It has not settled down yet. I hope it will. I have been involved with some projects concerning educating america a little bit about what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they established an independent judicial branch at the federal level. I think people have sort of lost sight of that over time. When our state's first performed at, if they all followed the pattern set by the federal government by appointment of state judges and then with confirmation typically by a state legislative. -- legislative action by either the state senate or larger action. It was president Andrew Jackson who persuaded states to take a different approach. He was a populist. It was his thinking that states should elect their ditches in popular elections. What happened was that Georgia was the first state to say, yes, that is a good idea. They stand to popular election. Many other states followed suit. We can talk more about that later. It has not been a wonderful development over time.

Host
i referred back to the book she wrote in 2002 -- the books you wrote in 2002. You talked about the work of art in the supreme court courtroom and how it always had important symbolism for you. Will you talk about that?
show less text

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
it is just the symbolism that the supreme court itself has. It is the court that has -- whose opinions are binding on all of the lower courts. The supreme court is only responsible for deciding issues of federal law, whether it is statutory or constitutional. The accord does not get involved in trying to interpret and apply state law. The symbolism is that this is the highest court in the land, and the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers in history and taking a look at what they thought worldwide was important for the judicial branch to do and how it should be structured. The courtroom contains representative figures of great lawgivers in the past. That concept was carried forward by the architects with the knowledge that the framers had also considered contributions from the great lawgivers in history. We had a majestic court room, representing the of majesty of the law.

Host
do you still have strong memories of that day? can you tell me about them? my first day on the court?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
it was such a remarkable feeling to have been sworn in as a justice of the court, a position i never anticipated holding. I never aspired to that. I did not think it was a realistic expiration and i never spent time in about it. All the sudden, out of the blue, here came inquiries about my availability to talk about a position on the court. Place, already serving on the place was one of my classmates from law school, William Rehnquist.

i knew his wife. They were personal friends of my husband and mine. It was just inconceivable to me that we would be asked to serve on the court at the same time. There are many states that, to this day, have never had anyone serve on this court. For the small state of Arizona to have two at the same time, it was unimaginable to me. When i was interviewed by some of the cabinet members in the Reagan administration, i did not believe for a minute that i would be asked to serve. I went back to Arizona after those interviews and said to my husband how interesting it was to visit Washington d. C. And to meet the people around the president and to meet the president himself. Goodness i do not have to go do that job. And i was not sure that i could do the job will enough to justify the time. Like this, it is wonderful to be the first to do something, but i did not want to be the last. If i did not do a good job, it may have been the last. Indeed, when i retired, i was not replaced the then by a woman. That gives one pause to think, oh, what did i do wrong that led to this? but i am sure that the future will show that we have other women serving on the court. It is hard to be the only woman on the court, which i experienced for about 10 years or so. This was in a population that, these days, produces at least 50% of law school students being women. It is hard to think of a number of women on the court, not just one paren. Have not come from the federal court system, sitting there and going through that system, what was it like?
show less text

it had a sense of unreality to it. The arguments of the court are not long. There is only an hour allotted per case, normally, unless extended time is granted. An argument goes very quickly for its side, particularly if the lawyers are asked in number of questions. I discovered that, indeed, we did have members of the court that like to ask a number of questions. So the, the oral argument went by very quickly. I was someone -- i was somewhat hesitant to ask anything first because of my lack of experience in the courtroom at this level. It was also my lack of knowledge about my new colleagues and have acted in that setting -- and how they acted in that setting. I learned how often and how they asked questions and how the whole process happens. I have a high learning curve at first. I had to see how the cases unfolded in the courtroom in oral argument and what was appropriate and what was not.

Host
when you are sitting on the bench and watching the lawyers in front of you, are you cognizant of the public in the back? are you conscious of what is going on in the room or just focusing on the lawyers making the case?
normally, which is focused on the lawyers making the case.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
there were a couple of times in the years that i've served that somebody created a bit of a disturbance in the courtroom and that was quickly resolved. Of course, that would divert your attention. For the most part, people in the audience are very quiet and the staff at the court escorts them in quiet late and explains -- as course the man quietly and explains that they have to be -- and escorts them quietly and explains that they have to be very quiet. Some of your focus is on your colleagues and what their questions are. You can see what concerns them and lead you to a new area of inquiry that you did not have yourself.

Host
at first, everything you did it was rocked with history making. How did you make the choice about what your robe would look like as the first female justice. I did not make much of a choice.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
there were very few roads available. I did not know anybody who made robes for women justices. I think that most of what was available was something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic processions and registrations -- and a graduation from universities. I think that was all that was available. I just got what was available and put it on. Harder was the church for a woman of a judicial caller. At first -- a judicial collar. At first, i've brought my Arizona road with me. I did not have a judicial collar in those days in Arizona. I was given a note that had been written by someone sitting in the audience one day in the courtroom. It said, do justice O'Connor, i am in the audience watching the court today and i noticed that you did not have a judicial collar. All of your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars and they showed under the robe. You just looked like a washed out justice to me. What is happening here? so i took that note to heart and i thought, well, media should try to find some kind of maybe i should try to find some kind of white judicial collar. I did not always wear a white shirt. No one made them for women. The only place you could get them was in England or France. I did manage to get a color or two from France. -- a collar or two from France. There is a woman who is the first state to judge in [unintelligible] she sent me hers. That was pretty elegant. I used that as well. But finding a judicial collar for a woman turned out to be quite a task.

Host
knowing that the court is full of traditions, can you talk about the procedure when an argument is being heard?
first of all, on days of oral arguments, a bell or buzzer is sounded in each chamber of the justice about 10 minutes ahead, reminding you that, in 10 minutes, you are supposed to be on the bench.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
at that point, you need to go down to the robing room and be ready to go into the courtroom at the appointed hour. Chief justices do not like to believe, as you can imagine, into the courtroom. The robing room has a narrow section of the larger cabinet in which the justices wrote or robes or hong and you did -- and your traditional collar, if you have one, can be on the shelf. You can pick up the road that you are going to put on that day. You have more than one. And they will help you into the road. You get it fessenden friend. In my case, you were it -- you get it fastened in front. And my kids, you worry about getting the traditional collar on right. Then all of the justices sit in the conference room, around the table, to discuss the cases. It is accustomed, happily so, for each justice to shake every other justices and before going into the courtroom. I think that is a great customer. Not all courts do that. I think that is comfortable. It could take someone's hand and shake it, you are much less likely to hold a grudge. There's something about human contact that matters.

Host
In the pre argument conference, what happens there? are you discussing who might ask certain questions?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
there is not a pre-argument conference. you walk into the conference room, you put your robes on, and you shake the other justices hands. When they're older and accounted for, the chief justice says it is time to go and people line up in order of seniority. They are seated on the bench. So you lineup, across the hallway to enter the back of the courtroom, and they divide three justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right, depending on where you are going to be seated. When the chief justice gives the signal to some member of the staff, then the gavel drops in the courtroom by the marshal and people enter the -- the justices stand by their chairs. The formal introduction of the court is made by the clark.

Host
Is it always a very solid process?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
why, yes, it is. You don't go in there making a joke.

you're not laughing. You're not talking. When the last gavel sounds, you are seated. Someone behind the chair hopes to get your share seated. Then the chief justice will normally call the lawyers who are going to introduce and proposed admission to the bar, some new member of the bar, that usually occurs first, and then the chief justice will call upon the lawyers for the petitioner in the first case. They're called by name and they, and proceed. There are lights at the podium for the lawyer who is making the argument. When the lawyer has only five minutes remaining, a yellow light goes on. When that time is all up, a red light goes on. Depending on the chief justice, that can be closely observed or somewhat relaxed. When Bill Rehnquist was chief justice, he made the met here to the time limit their strictly.

Host
very strictly. You talk about seniority. We have learned that seniority is important threat the tradition of the supreme court. As the years progress and your able to me of your seat belongs in nordic, does that make a difference -- as the years progressed and you were able to move your seat all long seniority, does that make a difference?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
it does not matter what you do. You still are what you are. Some like to ask questions and some do not.
we have justices who seldom ask questions and we have justices who always have questions. So that does not seem to change.

Host
what was your own approach to asking questions as the years progressed?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
i ask what i thought i needed to know. we'll read the briefs before the oral argument. We spent a lot of time in advance of the oral argument preparing. Unlike most courts around the world, we allow the filing a friend-of-the-court briefs by other interested groups or parties. It now parties of this case, that want to file an application asking leave to file a friend- of-the-court brief. If it is a timely request and there is no objection, it is granted. We typically have a member of friend-of-the-court briefs in addition to the ones filed by the parties. That means you have done a great deal of reading before ever coming into the courtroom. The justices are thoroughly familiar with the arguments that are going to be made. I am sure that most of the justices, as did i, had a tentative opinion on every case before the argument began, how should be resolved. We have done our homework. You cannot do that and not form some views about the particular case. Concluded one thing or another about the case. Oftentimes, you still have questions you would like to know about some factual background or some legal position that is being urged and you have "what if" kinds of questions -- what if the facts were this way in this case? how would it come out?

you talk about the justices having a tentative opinion before the oral argument is heard. We have learned about the initial smug that happens in conference after the cases have been heard.

Host
we have not gotten to the final stages of the process. How do you arrive at the final vote tally on any case? take this into the conference room and into the conference room and the writing of the opinion -- take us into the conference room and the writing of the opinion.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
the discussion is on the merits of the case. That is very important appeared that discussion does not take place -- that is very important. That discussion does not take place until later in the week. The nine justices get together around the table in the conference room and talk about the merits of the case. Normally, there's only one discussion that takes place and is -- and it is that discussion -- sometimes there are some cases where there is no clear consensus and there has to be 2nd discussion. That is the exception, not the rule. Normally, it is the one discussion that occurs in that conference room, in the week following, in the wake of the oral argument. As you heard, it starts with the chief justice and goes down the line to the junior justice. Those discussions lead the justice to conclude tentatively to affirm or reverse any particular case. That vote is not cast in concrete. You're not walking on what concrete yet. You can change your mind. Occasionally, a justice will do that. But a writing assignment is made based on that first conference discussion.

If the chief justices in the majority on that case, the chief justice makes the writing assignment to someone in the majority, asking someone, you write or will keep it myself or whatever it is. The dissenting view is also typically assigned by the most senior justice on the defending side if there's going to be a descent. Sometimes, the court is unanimous. That is a happy circumstance. But that is in a minority of cases. I do not know what it is at present. Normally, it runs about 50% or 20% of the cases -- it runs about 15% or 20% of the cases being unanimous. Then the other eight has a chance to weigh entered normally, they will start acting within a day or two. If there is a dissenting opinion to be written, often, people will wait and look at the descent before forecasting their vote. Once the descent circulates, it can be so powerful that it causes someone who tentatively had been with the majority to change their view to some extent. The details are worked out not around a conference table. It is in the riding of the opinions that the persuasion takes place -- is in the writing of the opinions that the persuasion takes place. If you see the words on a printed page, then you can get very specific on what it is that you might find some question about. It really occurs in the writing.

Host
Do you enjoy the intellectualism of the job?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
yes, the setting your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. Some of the issues are really tough. Some of them are not.

some of them are clear-cut. But some are enormously challenging summit you want to wait yourself -- challenging. Some you want to wait yourself before casting your vote. When you have to write, to have to put it down in words, rather than just think it through, is a real challenge.

Host
Were there any particular types of cases that you were most attracted to?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
no, i do not think so, at all. Even a case on a subject you think is boring can turn out to be enormously challenging at the end of the day. it can be anything. I do not think subject matter determines the extent of your interest in it. It is in the challenge of solving this particular question of law and making it work. It is beyond any subject.

when the dissenter the commentary written in the opinions, sometimes, when you read them, they can be quite sharp and sometimes they're quite personal. If i thought it was too unfortunate, i would go to the justice and say, you know, i wonder if you do not want to say it that way. Maybe it would help if you remove this sentence for that sentence so it is a little more gentle. I was not averse to making that request on occasion.

Host
you wrote about the warm acceptance by the other justices upon your arrival.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
Yes.

Host
As a whole, is this court much like a family? for the justices friends outside of the building as well as working in the hallway?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
yes. by and large, it is a very collegial group and that was very blessed for 25 years here. I was in a court where that was the case. It was not always that way. In the court history, there have been times when certain members of the court had a strong antipathy to someone else on the bench. That would not be a happy time to be here. I was very grateful that, during my years here, people got along pretty well.

Host
i have some big and reflective questions for you. Something about the building itself, you come back now to a place where you spent a quarter of a century of your life, what do you think of this prospect, this building in particular, and its effectiveness as a symbol for the judicial process?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
the building is beautiful. dover thought he had done such a great job that the u. S. Capital should be moved so that people have a better view of the court. That was his view. I think he did create a beautiful building. But there was no way that the capital would be moved to provide a better view. It is built in the overall theme of the Greek temple and it has to be a full steps in front. It is marble from different places in the united states. You walk through the marble hallway for the main entrance and into the courtroom, which is much like the Greek temple design. It is uninspiring area. It is smaller than you might think if you have not entered before. It is not a huge courtroom. There are courts of appeals court from their larger than this one. And the opposite -- and the offices of the justices are not large. There are many circuit court justices and district court judges in federal court houses around the land that have larger chambers than those of a justice on this court. It is not size that makes the grandeur for the specialness of the case. It is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special.

Host
it is. Do have any favorite places in this building? -- do you have any favorite places in this building?
there is no plans to retreat.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
you treat your own chambers if you want to get anything done. We have a beautiful library and there are reading to bill up there. There were a few times where i had to occupy a two or three of those tables, leaving the books out so the law clerks and i could go up there and sit up in the reading room and refer to all of those passages in the preparation of an opinion. But that is not often. Normally, we can put the money card and get them downstairs and use them downstairs -- we can put them on a cart and get them downstairs and use them downstairs. When i came to the court, we had a very massive computers. They were not simple. You're not at all tempted to go to your computer. Today, they tend to be small and agile and much easier to use.

Host
You said that you have been spending a great deal of time helping to educate people about the role of the court. will you reflect on the role of the court in society and what you think people's opinions are that they should perhaps be educated about?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
the supreme court in general has been respected by the american people. I think it has been one of the institutions of government that is most respected. Obviously, the legislative branch has a -- creates a mixed impression among citizens because you have members from both political parties who are offering very different views of things. And the president himself sometimes can be criticized by some groups and admired by others. But the court, in general, has had the respect and admiration of the people. I hope we can keep it that way.

There have been more criticisms of judges in general that i have heard in the last 25 years than have been typical in previous years, with few exceptions. That distresses me. I think it is time that Americans wake up to what is the dreamers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. They have a clear vision in mind and that was that the federal court would be deciding issues of federal law, constitutional, and statutory. Those judgments would be binding on all courts, state and federal. That was the framers concept and they provided no term of years for the service. It says that federal judges will serve for good behavior. The provided that the salary of a federal judge could not be reduced during that term of service of a federal judge. So the framers very much did not want the other branches imposing sanctions on federal judges by virtue of some decision with which they disagreed. That was a remarkable concept.

Host
You told us that, when you came home from the interview, this was a job you did not think you wanted.

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
Right.

Host
Now that you have had the job and have left it for a couple of years, can you imagining what your life had been like?

Sandra Day O'Connor [automatically transcribed, may contain inaccuracies]
my life would have been fine, thank you. But i have been very privileged to be here. and it was a great privilege. It enabled me to see from inside just what a wonderful institution the supreme court of the united states really is.

Host
Thank you for your time.