Former Justice Stevens on the 3 worst Supreme Court decisions of his tenure

AMNA NAWAZ: Former Justice John Paul Stevens
spent 35 years on the Supreme Court writing some of the court’s most important decisions. Today, at 99 years old, he’s still writing
and weighing in on some of the country’s most controversial issues. Judy Woodruff caught up with Justice Stevens
last month. And he shared his thoughts on everything from
President Trump to how a childhood accident shaped his future views on gun ownership. JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, John Paul Stevens remains
one of the titans of American law, owing mostly to his long Supreme Court tenure, which spanned
decades. Even in retirement, he has stayed in the public
eye, bow tie and all, a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012, two previous books about
the court and the Constitution published in 2011 and 2014. As he turns 99, the retired justice has written
another, “The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years.” And he is opening up, carefully, about current
affairs and even the current president. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Former U.S. Supreme Court
Justice: I am not a fan of President Trump, I should say. I wouldn’t try to comment on every particular
issue in which we disagree, but there are plenty of them. JUDY WOODRUFF: And his effect on the country
as president? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: I don’t think it’s been
favorable. JUDY WOODRUFF: Can you elaborate? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, that’s not part of
my responsibility as a judge, and I think I shouldn’t try to get involved in the politics,
as a retired judge. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stevens’ new book of reflection
begins in Chicago with his family’s hotel business and an encounter his father, Ernest
Stevens, had with one infamous Chicagoan. There are extraordinary anecdotes in here. Your father had a meeting with Al Capone? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, he said he did, and
I assume he’s telling me the truth. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: Stevens writes that his father
and other hotel men in the city thought it important to persuade industry groups to hold
their conventions in Chicago. His father and another hotel manager “paid
a visit to Al Capone, explained how Chicago’s hotel business might be affected if any conventioneers
were robbed and asked for his help.” “According to my father’s account,” Stevens
continued, “Capone said he understood, and, in fact, there wasn’t a single holdup in Chicago
during the week of the convention.” Stevens also recalls his own home being invaded
in the winter of 1933 and a gun fired by an older brother, Jim, in the aftermath. Stevens wrote: “Despite threatening comments
and behavior by the armed intruders, a neighbor came the closest to being a victim of a real
tragedy, when Jim’s shot so narrowly missed him.” Did that have an effect later in your thinking
about the judicial system? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, yes, it did. And I have thought about that frequently,
for the fact that these accidents can happen when there are too many guns around. And that has reminded me of reason to be opposed
to the Second Amendment. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stevens was on the high court
in 2008, dissenting when Justice Antonin Scalia and other conservative colleagues voted in
a landmark case to say that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to bear
arms. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: It’s one of the three very,
very bad cases. And it was particularly bad. There is no doubt about that. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you worry that that is something
that is going to stand for a long time and will continue to have repercussions in this
country? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Oh, yes, I certainly do. JUDY WOODRUFF: The other two rulings in that
category that Stevens opposed at the time and laments to this day are the pivotal Bush
v. Gore ruling, deciding the 2000 presidential election, and the landmark Citizens United
ruling in 2010 on campaign finance during Stevens’ final term. It’s clear how strongly you feel that Citizens
United was wrongly decided. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think it’s had a
corrosive effect on American politics? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Just look at the amount
of money. I can’t give you the figures, but millions
and millions of dollars are spent on campaigns now. And, often there’s state representatives spending
money provided by residents of other states. People in the district should be the ones
who decide the outcome of elections. JUDY WOODRUFF: Since his own departure, the
court has not had to weigh in on a major Second Amendment or campaign finance case. But it has dealt several times with cases
involving the death penalty and its implementation. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: My own thinking — and
it took quite a while to really reach the conclusion that the death penalty does more
harm than good — it’s terribly expensive and really a pointless process, because it
— I think it accomplishes very little that can’t be accomplished with more humane punishment. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, right now, the court is
still divided on the issue. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you believe, eventually,
the death penalty will be done away with in this country? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Oh, yes. I think it certainly will. JUDY WOODRUFF: Today’s court retains the conservative
tilt that existed throughout much of Stevens’ tenure. And since the installation of its newest justice,
Brett Kavanaugh, some liberal groups have questioned whether some precedents like the
Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights will remain. It looks as if the people who feel strongly
anti-abortion want the court to take this up and do away with Roe v. Wade. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Yes. Well, it could happen. I just don’t know what’s on the agenda for
other justices. But it did seem to me that that wasn’t a very
controversial topic at the time of my appointment. Nobody asked me a single question about abortion
during my hearings. Later, opposition became more organized and
more effective. But I can’t predict what’s going to happen
in the near future. But in the long run, it seems to me that abortion
is a necessary procedure that will be recognized and will be performed lawfully. JUDY WOODRUFF: As for his former colleagues,
Stevens helped swear in the current chief justice, John Roberts, in 2005. Despite any ideological differences, Stevens
still holds Roberts in high esteem. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: I trusted him implicitly,
have the highest regard for him as a lawyer. And I must confess I was disappointed at some
of his decisions after he came on the bench that were much more conservative than I expected. But, on the whole, I think he is still a very
well-qualified person. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, in the end, most of Stevens’
new book serves as an account of how he himself has managed and sometimes failed to shape
American law. You have a remarkable legacy on the court. You served for 35 years. What do you believe your legacy will be? JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, that’s difficult
to figure out. But I wound like people to think I was an
honest judge and a good judge. And I always tried the reach the best result
in every case. JUDY WOODRUFF: Justice John Paul Stevens,
thank you very much for talking with us. JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Well, thank you. I have enjoyed it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *