Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Fantastic -- not all the bill providential timing.
Edited to answer your next question I don't have a deal with the justice about this.
-- -- Well it looks like fantastic biography -- -- and you something about John Paul Stevens that American -- and are now.
Well -- categorized as the senior liberal on the court.
And although I think if you were -- keep being in a superficial way that's probably correct but that the truth is that for much of his early years.
He was right down the middle of that fact he was considered I moderate conservative on many cases.
His sort of primary instinct was judicial restraint which means the court should not take up issues -- is uses about as far from an activist judges you can get.
Sometime in the 1990s however that this statistics do indicate that he began.
Two to side with the liberals and read it recently he's been about the equal I would say -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and terms of that sort QB.
What to what do you attribute that -- L what did he why did you know a lot.
Well he claims that the court shifted on -- but -- statistics.
Don't exactly bear that out the court has become more conservative obviously because of recent appointments.
On the other hand even on balance I think it's correct to say that he's become more liberal.
If for example he was one of the three justices who wrote in an opinion that reinstated the death penalty.
A number of years ago and remote most recently he eroded decision that.
But while it did leave the death penalty in place really denounce the procedures involved in the death penalty on the death penalty law also.
I think it's an evolution I think he would acknowledge that Justice Stevens often says that his job is a work in progress.
I think bill was his most defining.
Well the one towards -- -- she is best known and I must say that the most of his well known decisions happen to be dissent so as opposed -- this decisions for the majority.
The best known is the bush V gore dissent in the in 2000 where he wrote a very stinging rebuke of the Supreme Court.
For having engaged in the Florida vote count his view was it that the court the Supreme Court had no business going in there when the Florida court system was perfectly adequate.
He's well known for that most recently of course I'm sure you've talked about it is -- Citizens united case involving.
Corporate and labor union expenditure direct expenditures for electioneering here again he wrote it.
Very strong dissent in that case.
But it was focused as was bush V gore on the role of the courts.
He argued that the citizens united case was a pure case of -- judicial activism by the conservatives and that.
And it was like it was a case that even the parties in the lawsuit.
Didn't raise the issues of the court decide it.
What is more interesting decisions -- -- it is.
Big the Supreme Court overturned the ban on flag desecration that but this death protected by the First Amendment.
Honestly yes speech you can burn a flag stumble on it all they want if you want he actually wrote that this -- On that he disagreed with that decision and that deadly struck me.
That's the -- Anecdote in our book.
I'll purpose because we wanted to make the point to Justice Stevens is somewhat unpredictable.
Of those who knew him when he went on the court what are regarded him as the -- fans photos speak over the First Amendment right of free speech certainly political speech.
And yet you're right he wrote it it was -- the only -- but it was a solo dissent which means.
No one joined the monitor yet his own point of view on the flag burning case.
For those of wanna look -- up its Texas V Johnson.
But he believes and even to this day that the national flag as a symbol.
And as such needs to be venerated and and that it has some expressive value of its own.
That should not be tarnished he is a product as you probably know World War II having served in the navy.
His son served in Vietnam.
He just believes that the US flag is a symbol.
That deserves special treatment -- and he went up against this if you go back in the in the oral argument he went up against William Kunstler who was arguing for the other side.
Yes and conflicts certainly was arguing the other side telling guests that.
-- it's -- one of the more interesting oral arguments because Stevens doesn't normally expressed opinions on the bench but he did in that occasion.
-- with a little -- you mentioned that his World War II background and even though there are those of us who might disagree with just -- that decisions -- -- coming from ideologically.
Nobody can doubt that that he was decent man who really serve this country -- talk to us a little bit about where -- was stationed in the navy in World War II.
Yes he went to well first of all.
In those days the military services have what they called top talent spotters for the intelligence services.
These are individuals who were faculty members -- major universities and they would look for.
Bright students who could go into intelligence work and there was such an individual.
At the University of Chicago who recruited Stephens into intelligence work for the navy.
He joined the navy and the often jokes about this the day before.
The Pearl Harbor attack and -- his that is the punch line is you saw what happened the next day.
He was -- -- -- to Pearl Harbor ultimately.
And he was engaged in the work of interpreting Japanese radio signals.
So that the US and allied navy couldn't -- figure out where the Japanese ships word was very very intricate work.
And frankly I think it was influential on his ability.
To review the cases and to reach decisions in cases because it was extremely intense.
Are extremely difficult -- also obvious.
Filter by section