[E. THOMAS:] Early in Justice O'Connor's time, her second year,
a case comes before the Supreme Court,
a very important case in gender discrimination.
[archival court audio]: We will hear arguments next in Mississippi University for Women against Hogan.
[MCGREGOR:] A man wanted to attend the Mississippi University of Women Nursing School.
It was close to where he lived.
It was a public university,
but it was only for women.
[NARRATOR:] One of a series of cases strategically brought to challenge gender discrimination
––and thereby expand women's rights––
the Hogan case struck a particular chord for O'Connor.
[O'Connor:] Mr. Gholson, you have referred to the demand for a single-sex institution
as being its justification.
Would you make the same argument if there were a demand for an all-white publicly funded education?
[E. THOMAS:] At the Supreme Court conference, the vote is tied;
four justices say yes, four justices say no.
As the junior justice, O'Connor has the last vote.
It's up to her.
She's the fifth vote to let men in.
[NARRATOR:] O'Connor was assigned to write the opinion for the liberal majority.
[GREENHOUSE:] O’Connor ruled that the exclusion of men from a nursing program
was based on stereotype,
and it couldn’t stand as a matter of equal protection under the Constitution.
That showed the world that,
although she had never presented herself as a feminist,
that the first woman on the Supreme Court was going to make a difference
when it came to sex discrimination.
[NARRATOR:] Then, in a move that would become a kind of signature,
O'Connor narrowed the ruling to the facts of the case.
[HIRSHMAN:] She added a footnote saying that
this decision would only apply to the nursing school,
even though all of the reasoning of the opinion
on its face applied to any university.
It was the narrowest possible holding.
[MCGREGOR:] She regarded that as the appropriate approach for the Court to take.
You decide the issues that the Court accepted,
and that’s the way that the Court moves the law along.
[DINH:] Justice O'Connor did not think that it was the role of the Court,
to create revolutions, to lead reforms,
but rather, to serve as a limited check on the powers of the government.
If change is to be had, it is to be done through the legislative process.
[HIRSHMAN:] So her judicial philosophy was,
you don’t know if you’re going to do harm or good if you make too large of a ruling.
Make the narrowest ruling to resolve what you have in front of you,
and stay within the sweet spot of America’s belief system.
[DINH:] She was a very effective politician
well before she was appointed to the Supreme Court.
And she had faith in that democratic process
and the votes of the people.
[Moyers] Am I wrong in thinking
that your experiences in the politics and law of Arizona
more strongly shaped your constitutional views
than being a woman?
[O'Connor] Oh, I don’t know.
I leave that for other people to say.
I don’t know.
[Moyers] But as I read your opinions
I come, time and time again, upon your reference to the states,
much more so than I do any, what might be called, feminist insights.
[O'Connor] I am a product of state government.
And I think that it is appropriate
that we try to preserve
strong and capable state governments.
Because I still tend to believe
that the best government is that government closest to the people.
[E. THOMAS:] On the really tough cases,
the big social issues like affirmative action and abortion, religion,
Justice O'Connor's view was that the Supreme Court is not the last word.
[Moyers] Nothing’s ever settled on this Court for sure, is it?
[O'Connor] No, it’s never an absolute end to any issue.
It’s more a process of a continuing dialogue.
[Moyers] Dialogue — between?
[O'Connor] Between the court and the Congress and the nation as a whole.