the framers of the american constitution harboured few illusions about human nature, and that's why they invested so much significance in this place — the us supreme court, the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. my guest today was the first woman to be appointed as a justice in this court. for 25 years, she was one of its most influential voices. but is the independence of the judiciary now under threat? sandra day o'connor, welcome to hardtalk. thank you.

you were raised on a ranch in remote arizona. i was. you described yourself as a cowgirl. well, i was. i grew up on this remote cattle ranch that was half in arizona and half in new mexico. we weren't near any town. and so our little community consisted of my parents and me and about six cowboys. and we all lived, basically, in the same place and tried to run the ranch. we had cattle and we also raised enough horses to do the work on the ranch. and that was my life. so you were a very practical girl? i think so, because we had to solve all the problems ourselves. if something broke down or you had a problem, you couldn't turn to the yellow pages and call a repair person for help. you had to fix it yourself. and would you say that you brought that sort of common sense, that practicality, to your long career in the law and in public service? perhaps a bit.

and my parents were very independent in the sense that they thought the best government was the government closest to them and that people could jolly well handle most things for themselves, thank you very much. that sounds conservative, with a small c. i would say so. you were identified as a sort of goldwater republican at a time when barry goldwater, from arizona, was an extreme right—winger. i don't know how extreme he was, but he was a fiscal conservative, and i think had a libertarian touch. when my husband and i were living in the phoenix, arizona area, which we did for 25 years, he was our friend and neighbour. was it always difficult for you as a woman? because from the very beginning you were sort of pioneering, you were going places

women hadn't been before. i came along at the very time that conditions were changing for women in the workplace in the united states, and probably in great britain as well. you know, in world war ii, many of the men, if not most, were pulled off into military service and women went to work in large numbers, and they discovered that not only could they do jobs reasonably well, they rather enjoyed it. and when, at the end of the war, the men came back and wanted theirjobs back, women wanted to continue to work too. and that was the start of a change in our country. there was legislation at the national level and in most states to ensure equality ofjob opportunity in the workplace for women. and were you always highly ambitious? no, i wouldn't say that, but i always knew that i liked to work and i wanted to work at something worth doing. that was never in doubt. and once i had a law degree,

then i wanted to do work in the legal profession or related to it. well, work in the legal profession turned out to be... i had a hard time getting it when i graduated from stanford law school, but that was way back in 1952. you mean, because you were a woman? because i was a woman. i could not get a job interview with a law firm, couldn't even get an interview. it was amazing. and i was shocked. i think i was naive, because when i went to law school, it never entered my mind that i'd have trouble getting a job. i had a good record in school, so my firstjob coming out of law school as a lawyer ended up being as a deputy county attorney in a public law office. opportunities for women lawyers were first available in public...in the public sector. but within 30 years, you were getting an extraordinary call from the reagan administration. idid. i got a call from the president

asking if he could announce my nomination to the us supreme court the next day. that was a real shock. well, i'm sure it was. yes. there had been no women on the supreme court. no, not in 191 years. that's how long it took. so what were your feelings at that time? frankly, i was rather dismayed because i knew that it would be a totally new experience. i did not know if i could do thejob well enough. i've always said that it's exciting and wonderful to be the first to do something, but i didn't want to be the last. and to take on that enormous task was a real concern to me. you didn't bring to the court a broad...a sweeping ideological view of how to interpret the constitution, whereas many others on the court... perhaps not. ..have a deeply ideological view. my goldwaterfriendship led me to understand much of his philosophy,

which was that he also thought the best government was that closest to the people, and that government should not overspend. it should be fiscally conservative, and i rather agree with that. he was not one to get deeply involved in social issues. and in more recent years, i think many people politically have become more involved in trying to resolve some social issues. but on that question, and i suppose if we talk about one specific hot—button issue, it would be abortion, many of those who supported your nomination, who saw you as a conservative, who would be consistent with them on the social issues, felt betrayed and let down by you. were you aware of that at the time? not particularly. we've had a number of cases dealing with state regulation of abortion, and the court has

had to wrestle with them through the years, and i've had to do the same thing. by and large, the court, through the years, has allowed states to regulate abortion within some limits. and it's where you draw that line that has caused a great deal of public discussion. i believe one of your own opinions on this, in 1992... planned parenthood versus casey. ..made it plain that there could not be undue burdens placed on the right of a woman... correct. that was the test we adopted. you're happy with that today? i don't think anybody in this country is happy with the resolution of questions dealing with abortion. it's been a very, very divisive issue for the people of this country and it continues to be so. let me ask you about the time when the court impacted on the consciousness of everybody around the world. and that was in november...

..or after november 2000, after the bush—gore election, when the vote was essentially virtually tied in florida. yes, it was very close. there was a recount. and in the end, the outcome of the election was effectively settled in the supreme court of the united states. why was it that... well... ..in the end the case came to you? i don't think in the end it was settled so much by this court as by the votes that were cast in florida. but what came to the court were issues of whether the florida courts had correctly applied federal election law, which govern presidential elections. there are certain federal requirements. and the first case came to the court, and this court was unanimous in saying that the florida courts had not correctly applied federal election law and sent the case back.

and the case was not then treated by the florida supreme court again before the second case returned. we'd had no response from the florida court. and then came the second case raising additional issues, and the court resolved it. but of course, by that time, the time contemplated under federal law for the new president to take office was at hand. and so we had to face the question of should it be remanded again to state courts, postponing the inauguration of a president, or should the courtjust proceed and say the fault that it found below and let it be? and that's what the court did. and the result was that there were slightly more votes in the contested counties in florida for bush than for gore.

and there were three recounts after this court finished. did you know that? there were three recounts of all those votes, and those recounts were paid for, at least some of them, by the press itself, that very much wanted to see what the deal was. and it's interesting that in none of the recounts would the result have changed. it was the same. did it damage america, do you think, that whole episode? oh, i think people were very divided, as they were on the election itself. they were very divided. and did it, therefore, because the court, albeit you say absolutely rightly, was brought into this, did it damage the court? well, i can't say, speaking from having served on the court, that i think there was any permanent damage done. there was a great deal of unhappiness. but i have to say, at the end of the day, it is remarkable that we live under a system

of a rule of law where hot—button issues like that can be resolved without people fighting it out in the streets. at the end of the day, i think you have to say that's a blessing, not a curse. i want to ask you about the balance of power, the separation of powers in this country, particularly at a time of war. since 9/11, this country's government has declared itself at war in a global war against terrorism. what implications does that have for the balance of power between particularly the executive branch and the judicial branch? we have seen in times of war in the past... ..certainly in our civil war in the 1860s... that was the worst situation this country ever faced. and we had a few crises then. abraham lincoln was our president, and he is one

of the great presidents of all time, if not the greatest. and he felt it necessary during the course of that war to suspend unilaterally the writ of habeas corpus. you could argue, as indeed people argue about george bush and his use of similar powers today, that in the very act of assuming these powers in defence of the nation, he's undermining the very principles for which the fight is being fought. that's correct. but this nation was in peril of not surviving in the civil war. it came very close to not. the north could well have lost that war. well, there's the rub, isn't it? and so... i suppose the question now... ..this is very difficult, and i'm just citing you an example of the tension that has arisen in the past in time of war. and then in world war ii,

we had another issue of how to deal with enemies captured during the war and what to do with them. and once again, there were issues between the executive branch and the legislative on what to do. and some of those cases came to the supreme court. and i think the worst thing that happened in world war ii probably, from the standpoint of this court, was the decision by the executive branch, which the legislative branch went along with, to imprison people of japanese descent, even though they were american citizens, out of fear that they were going to commit some acts that would harm us during that wartime period after the country was at war also with japan. and that was really a ghastly thing to do. these are people who were citizens of the country and they were literally

put in prison camps. and you've since described that as a mistake? i think it was. so, i suppose my question is... the korematsu decision. ..whether — yes — whether you believe mistakes are being committed in this war on terrorism. i'm not going to answer that question, because i'm not on the court. it's not going to come to me. but what i am telling you is that in times of war, this is not the first time that there have been tensions between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the courts. in an opinion in 2004, you wrote that — and i'm quoting now — "a state of war is not — not — a blank cheque for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." that was in the hamdi case. that's right. yes. why did you feel it necessary to say that so bluntly? well, we had an issue there that we were trying to address, and it was coming to the court for the first time, and we were trying to deal with it.

but did you think... do you think that... ithink... ..there are elements in the executive branch... i think there are limits. ..who do feel they've got a blank cheque? i don't know. i can't answer that. i do not know. 0n the general principle, i was interested to read a legal commentator, noah feldman, writing in the new york times magazine earlier this year. he said that, "the modern presidency, "as expressed in the policies of the bush administration, "provides the strongest evidence that we're governed "by a fundamentally different constitution "from that envisioned by the framers." he thinks that that the presidential power has massively expanded from that anticipated by the framers. do you believe that he's right? i think there has been an expansion of the role of the executive. but i think there's also been a massive expansion since the time the constitution was written and the powers of congress. what the framers of the constitution envisioned they were writing was a national government of limited powers. and it doesn't look so limited today, to me,

from the standpoint of what congress does or what the chief executive does. it's a far cry from the model envisioned by the framers of the constitution. that sounds like an expression of concern you're giving me. well, i'm not. it's not for me to express concern. these are going to be worked out over time... but... ..among the three branches. do you think the independence of the judiciary is under real threat? i think we're seeing a lot of criticism today, both at the national level by members of congress and in many states, at the state level, ofjudges, be they state orfederaljudges. and it's disappointing to see such a strong level of criticism. i hope that over time it will be seen how essential to our system of government it is that we preserve thejudicial branch of government, both

at the national and the state levels, as having the power to carry out the role envisioned by the people who developed the three—party. .. ..the three—branch system for government. i'd just like to read you the words of tom delay — of course, controversial figure, but senior republican — who, after the florida courts upheld a key decision on a right—to—life issue, which gave the husband the right to, basically, end the life of his wife, who'd been in a vegetative state for a long time, tom delay, who disagreed with the decision, railed against the courts, and he described an "arrogant, out—of—control, "unaccountable judiciary "thumbing their noses at the congress and the president." what did you think when you heard... i think that is an example of the kind of rhetoric that has occurred in recent years aboutjudges and which makes me unhappy.

why is it happening, more now than ever? you know, we see threats, we see attacks on judges... we do. ..more than we've ever seen before. why is it happening? it's inherent probably in the role that the courts have in a system like ours, where, at the end of the day, they've had to rule on cases involving issues of social concern — in the abortion area, in the election area, in thejuvenile death penalty area, in connection with assertions of so—called gay rights — kind of a new development in recent years. and when courts decide cases in these areas, there are a lot of people who are going to disagree, as well as some who agree. and it becomes very divisive. now, great britain is soon going to find itself right

in the middle of the same kinds of issues, because now the courts in great britain have to deal with issues that come...arise out of parliament's actions in issues that are now affected by the european court of human rights, its rulings, or even the eu court of justice. and these things are going to start coming to great britain's highest court, which is being reorganised to look a lot more like the supreme court of the united states. this spring, after you left the court, you said, "courts interpret the law as it's written, "not as congressmen might have wished it was written. "it takes a lot of degeneration "before a country falls into dictatorship, "but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." yes. by that, i mean we have to be more respectful as a nation

of the role of the third branch of government, the judicial branch, because it is a very essential branch of government if we are to live in a constitutional democracy, if you will. it can't work any other way. if you have a constitution that guarantees certain individual rights against usurpation by the majority acting through an elected body — for instance, in the congress — taking away rights, then who's going to protect the guarantees of the constitution if you don't have a judiciary that can say what the law is and what the constitution requires? so we have to have that branch of government. i don't think... but it can't be... it can act when it is against... ..the ruling goes against the hopes and wishes of a substantial number of citizens. and getting back to a point

we were discussing earlier — do you worry about the independence of the judiciary, particularly when you're not in a war as we've traditionally known wars, but you're in an open—ended war which may go on indefinitely, with all that brings to the expansion of executive power? i worry about it, and i think the most important thing is education of our citizens. and i worry a lot about that because i think that we are no longer doing a very good job in our public schools of teaching civics and government in this country. were you disappointed that president bush couldn't find a woman to replace... i was. ..one of his two women on the supreme court? i was. because it took so long to get one. and now we're back to one instead of two. so, yes, i was disappointed. but that's not to say that the people chosen were not wonderfully qualified. they are. but i was disappointed.

he did come up with two newjustices, chiefjustice roberts... yes. ..and justice alito. yes. the complexion of the court is going to change, isn't it, because there is not now the centrist sort of bridge—builder that you were? well, i don't attach labels, but i had a colleague on the court when i came here, byron white, and he was a wonderfuljustice. and he told me early on that every time a member of the court changes, you get a newjustice, it's notjust a newjustice, it's a new court. and he's right, because when you have a small group of people working together day after day, in such a small group, so dependent on each other, if you change one of the members of the group, you change the group dynamics. so that's true. now we've had two changes and i'm sure there'll be, as a result, a new court. a more conservative, a more ideological court?

i don't know. we'll see. sandra day o'connor, thank you very much for being on hardtalk. you're welcome. hey. i am dylan with the catch up. tonight: exposing the �*rolex rippers�*. a skydive with a twist. and the first look at grand theft auto 6. but, first, the government has signed a new deal with rwanda saying it will guarantee the safety of asylum seekers sent there. to try and stop people coming, the uk wants to send those who cross the channel, because it puts them at risk. the man in charge says this

new treaty solves those issues but the plan still has to get past mps and maybe face judges again. some other stories now. a 28—year—old man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a woman was stabbed in south wales. police were called to aberfan on tuesday morning. witnesses say the victim was pregnant. bbc three is exposing violent watch thefts, £50 million worth taken in london last year, many snatched straight from victims�* wrists. there is more on hunting the rolex rippers on iplayer. the number of teenagers in the uk not eating because they do not have the money is one of the highest in europe. research found 11% skipped a meal at least once a week, the global average is 8%. an official look at gta 6 has already been watched 80 million times on youtube. the trailer confirms the game has a female lead character and is set in a miami—inspired city but it will not be out until 2025. finally, here is ten seconds of height.

this is brian, riding a wakeboard being towed by a drone and base—jumping 77 storeys in dubai. but don't worry — he landed safely on the beach. that is it from me, you are all caught up. hello again. temperatures have dropped away quite sharply through the night. and as we start on wednesday morning, there will be a hard and a widespread frost, particularly across northern areas of scotland. on top of that, some fog patches around as well. but there will be some sunny spells, certainly a quieter spell of weather for many of us throughout wednesday compared to the last few days. that area of low pressure bringing the rain, clearing away to the east. we've got further weather systems waiting out in the atlantic that will become more of a feature of the weather over the next few days. but a cold start to the day for many of us. temperatures potentially down

to —10 degrees in northern areas of scotland, and some freezing fog in the east of wales through parts of the midlands and southern areas of england. that could be quite stubborn to clear away, but elsewhere the fog should tend to lift and there'll be some sunshine across many areas before the cloud increases from the west, and with that some outbreaks of rain. but if you're stuck beneath the area of fog, temperatures may only be around about one degree celsius. so feeling particularly cold, but elsewhere we'll see temperatures 4—6 celsius. but in the west, you notice nine, 11 degrees there in plymouth, signs of the less cold air moving in. and as we go through wednesday night, that rain will continue to spread north and eastward. as it bumps into colder air, temporarily, there could be some snow over the higher ground of northern england and across scotland, but that will become increasingly confined to higher ground as we go through thursday because that less cold air, the milder conditions, will spread in from the southwest, moving to pretty much most areas throughout thursday. a strengthening wind to come with that as well. but it means actually

where we'll have a bit of snow for the time of a higher ground of scotland, heavy rain is going to spread through and that's going to bring the risk of some localised flooding, especially in areas where we've seen a bit of flooding over the last couple of days or so, eventually clearing from southern and western areas. temperatures here 10—11 degrees celsius, still perhaps just a little bit chilly beneath the cloud and the rain across eastern areas, 6—7 degrees. now, while that heavy rain does clear away to the northeast, we've got low pressure moving in from the atlantic, strengthening winds around the irish sea coasts and further outbreaks of rain. so certainly rain is going to become more of a feature of the weather over the coming days. there'll be some strong winds at times as well. but we will lose the frosty the icy conditions with temperatures in double figures. bye—bye.

live from london, this is bbc news. israeli prime minister pushes back against calls to change israel's tactics in gaza after american officials voice their concerns on the current strategy. former british prime minister

borisjohnson faces two days of intense questioning at the covid inquiry. he is expected to apologise for some mistakes during the handling of the pandemic. and us presidentjoe biden stirs controversy as he says he's not sure he'd run for re—election if donald trump was not running, too. hello, i'm sally bundock. the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has pushed back against those he says are trying to pressure israel's tactics in gaza. he said the only way to finish the job was to use crushing force against hamas. the remarks come as american officials are voicing disquiet about israel's methods. earlier, mr netanyahu is reported to have told

recently released hamas hostages and the families