annenberg media ♪ by: narrador: bienvenidos al episodio 34. en este episodio, llevan a roberto a un hospital en la ciudad de méxico.

en camino a la ciudad de méxico raquel y angela hablan de sus relaciones con otras personas. sabes, raquel aunque le he tenido un poco de envidia a roberto la verdad es que lo admiro. sí, lo sé. creo que también admiras a jorge. ay, bueno, sí, pero es distinto. jorge es mi novio. pero lo admiras, como admiras a roberto. raquel, te debo pedir disculpas. actué muy mal contigo, allá en puerto rico la última vez que hablamos de jorge. como parte del episodio, uds. van a aprender algunas palabras y expresiones que tienen que ver con las relaciones entre dos personas. para empezar, dos personas pueden ser amigos. entre los amigos, puede haber cariño, un afecto especial.

el cariño también puede existir entre los miembros de una familia. además de las relaciones entre amigos y familiares también existen las relaciones entre novios. los novios son dos personas que tienen una relación amorosa, romántica, algo muy especial. ( bocinazos ) captioning of this program is made possible by the annenberg/cpb project and the geraldine r. dodge foundation.

en el episodio previo finalmente rescataron a roberto de la excavación. mientras tanto, en la casa de ramón juan y pati seguían discutiendo. como ya sabemos, pati debe regresar a nueva york. pero juan quiere que se quede con él. ¿cómo puedes hacerme esto? ves. todo te lo hacen a ti. tus problemas son los más graves. a veces dudo que a ti te importen los demás. me importa mi papá. ¿ah, sí? entonces, ¿por qué no está más tiempo con él en el hospital? te lo pasas aquí peleándote conmigo cuando él te necesita. pedro y arturo terminaban su visita y decidieron averiguar algo

sobre el accidente en la excavación. seguramente llamará. si tengo alguna noticia, le aviso inmediatamente. por favor. aunque sea tarde, a cualquier hora. lo mismo ud. a mí. por supuesto. ha sido un gusto, doctor. el gusto ha sido mío. iroberto! no se preocupe, señorita. está inconsciente, pero parece que está bien. ¿no está seguro? aparentemente está bien. respira normalmente, no tiene fracturas. la temperatura y la presión son normales considerando lo que ha pasado. de todos modos, es necesario llevarlo a un hospital para hacerle un examen completo.

mientras tanto, en la casa de ramón... ( se da un portazo ) ¿pati?

¿qué pasa, pati? juan no entiende. yo tengo que ir a nueva york. bueno. juan siempre ha sido un poco... egocéntrico. pues, para decirlo francamente, sí. por fin alguien comprende. mira, pati... yo creo que tú tienes toda la razón en querer regresar a nueva york si tu trabajo lo requiere. ¿y juan? ya se repondrá. la enfermedad de papá lo está afectando mucho, claro

pero hay que ser optimista. todavía recuerdo el día de tu boda, como si fuera hoy. pati... pati, querida tú sabes bien que para mí la familia es lo más importante. somos una familia muy unida. pues bien, yo quiero darte la bienvenida a nuestra familia. gracias. gracias, mercedes. quiero que sepas que desde hoy más que una cuñada eres como una hermana para mí. puedes contar conmigo como si fuera tu hermana. les deseo a ti y a juan toda la alegría y la felicidad del mundo. gracias. ( música de órgano )

aquí vemos a juan y pati. ahora son esposos-- marido y mujer. ¿cómo comenzó su relación? por lo general, ¿cómo se desarrollan las relaciones? bueno. no todas las relaciones son iguales. hay variación y mucho depende de la sociedad.

pero podemos describir cómo ocurren comúnmente. para empezar, dos personas pueden ser amigas. entre los amigos, puede haber cariño, un afecto especial. el cariño también puede existir entre los miembros de una familia. además de las relaciones entre amigos y familiares también existen las relaciones entre novios. los novios son dos personas que tienen una relación amorosa, romántica, algo muy especial. entre los novios puede haber cariño pero también puede haber algo más... el amor. si los novios deciden unirse en el matrimonio

entran en otro período de sus relaciones, el noviazgo. durante el noviazgo, los novios siguen viéndose su amor crece y también hacen planes para su boda. los declaro marido y mujer. lo que dios ha unido el hombre jamás podrá separarlo. la misa ha terminado. idos en paz. ( campanas suenan ) ( música de órgano ) la boda es la ceremonia en que los dos novios finalmente llegan a ser esposos.

todos: ibeso! ibeso! ibeso! si tienen dinero y tiempo después de la boda la nueva pareja se va de luna de miel. para muchos la luna de miel es el período más romántico de su vida. van a lugares exóticos y la luna de miel se convierte en un tipo de vacaciones especial.

para algunos matrimonios, la luna de miel dura mucho tiempo. después de veinte años están tan felices como el día de su boda. para otros, la luna de miel es algo del pasado y el matrimonio cambia poco a poco. ¿y para juan y pati? juan: presiento que es el fin que todo ha terminado. no nos entendemos. nuestro matrimonio es un fracaso. yo la quiero mucho, ramón pero así no podemos seguir.

juan, estás exagerando, ¿no crees? lo único que ocurre es que pati quiere atender su trabajo. precisamente por eso. creo que a pati le importa más su trabajo que yo. juan, quisiera decirte algo. ¿qué es? acaso, no es posible que... dilo, ramón. ¿que qué? somos hermanos. bueno. yo en tu lugar me sentiría celoso. ¿celoso? ¿de quién? no es de quién, sino de qué. mejor debo decir tendría envidia.

yo sé que pati es muy inteligente que tiene mucho talento. es escritora, productora y directora y también profesora de teatro. ramón, ¿crees que tengo envidia del éxito de mi esposa? al día siguiente raquel y angela están en camino a méxico. entonces, ¿no fuiste con luis a nueva york? lo pensé. pero, si me hubiera ido no habría terminado mis estudios. en esa época, yo estudiaba derecho. comprendo. tuviste que elegir entre él y tus estudios. algo así. pensé reunirme con él después cuando me graduara.

pero... ¿pero qué? es que tú dices que yo tenía que decidir entre mis estudios y él y luis también tenía que decidir. y se decidió por su profesión. ay, raquel... al principio me sentí mal. luis quería que yo le acompañara a nueva york. pero, nunca se le ocurrió a él quedarse en los angeles y esperarme a mí. bueno, pero eso ya pasó. todavía tengo buenos recuerdos de luis. ¿no se volvieron a ver? no. al principio nos escribíamos. luego las cartas fueron cada vez menos frecuentes. ¿en qué piensas? en roberto, claro. ya oíste lo que dijo el doctor. seguro que se pondrá bien.

sabes, raquel aunque le he tenido un poco de envidia a roberto la verdad es que lo admiro. sí, lo sé. creo que también admiras a jorge. ay, bueno, sí, pero es distinto. jorge es mi novio. pero lo admiras, como admiras a roberto. raquel, te debo pedir disculpas. actué muy mal contigo, allá en puerto rico la última vez que hablamos de jorge. angela, la verdad es que yo no tengo derecho a meterme en tus asuntos. si lo prefieres, no hablamos más de jorge. no, al contrario, tú eres una buena amiga. tal vez me haga bien hablar de él contigo si no te aburres. tenemos un largo camino por delante. ¿por qué no me cuentas cómo lo conociste? jorge era amigo de un amigo de mi hermano.

¿sí? nos conocimos en una fiesta que dieron unos amigos de la universidad. me parecía que era muy simpático y esa misma semana salí con él. fuimos al teatro y luego seguimos viéndonos. pronto nos hicimos novios. parece que fue muy rápido. sí. en cierto sentido, sí. pero ahora no podría imaginar mi vida sin jorge. ¿y han hablado de casarse? bueno, cuando le enseñé la copa de bodas de la abuela rosario ¿sabes lo que me dijo? me dijo, "cuando nos casemos vamos a brindar con esta copa". iqué romántico! sí. así es jorge. por eso lo quiero tanto. es una persona muy romántica. raquel, cuéntame de mi tío arturo. porque... si no me equivoco

parece que hay algo entre uds. angela, eres muy perspicaz, ¿sabes? sí, bueno, la verdad es que hay algo. y otra vez parece como un amor imposible. otra vez la distancia... en méxico arturo termina una conversación telefónica con pedro. arturo: entonces, ¿no hay ninguna noticia? no, yo tampoco, raquel no me ha llamado. bueno, hasta luego, pedro. sí, sí, claro, cualquiera cosa lo llamo. hasta luego. disculpe. sí, dígame. ¿me permite el diario? ¿mande?

el periódico, ¿me lo permite un momento? ah, sí, por supuesto. aquí tiene. gracias. disculpe, a lo mejor ud. me pueda ayudar. sí, dígame. necesito saber la dirección de las oficinas de esta universidad. ah, sí, vamos a ver. aquí tiene la guía telefónica. gracias.

ay. no aguanto estar tanto tiempo sentada en un carro. bueno, aquí estamos. otra vez en camino. pero esta vez, vamos a la ciudad de méxico. ¿por qué vamos a méxico ahora?

vamos a la ciudad de méxico porque llevaron a roberto a un hospital de allí. sí, por fin rescataron a roberto. ¿y cómo lo llevaron a la ciudad? ¿en helicóptero o en ambulancia? lo llevaron en helicóptero. inmediatamente, angela y yo salimos para allá también. en el auto, angela estaba muy pensativa. ¿en qué, o en quién, pensaba angela? ¿en su novio jorge? ¿en qué piensas? en roberto, claro.

no, angela pensaba en su hermano roberto. y ella me dijo algo muy importante de roberto. ¿qué me dijo angela? sabes, raquel aunque le he tenido un poco de envidia a roberto la verdad es que lo admiro. raquel: angela me dijo que lo admiraba mucho. durante esa conversación en el carro las dos hablamos de cosas muy interesantes.

primero, yo supe algo sobre las relaciones entre angela y jorge. ¿qué recuerdan uds. de ellos? bueno, primero sabemos que angela conoció a jorge en una fiesta que daban unos amigos. jorge era amigo de un amigo de roberto. también sabemos que después de esa fiesta empezaron a verse y pronto se hicieron novios. finalmente sabemos que cuando angela le mostró a jorge la copa de bodas de su abuela rosario

él mencionó algo sobre matrimonio. todavía tengo mis dudas sobre jorge. ¿recuerdan lo que pasó en puerto rico? y dime algo de ti. ¿estás casada? no. ¿y tú, viajas con frecuencia a nueva york? sí. en nueva york tengo... bueno, tengo más oportunidades que aquí en puerto rico. pero no le voy a decir a angela nada más. bueno, yo también le conté a angela algunas cosas sobre mi antiguo novio. pero uds. ya saben eso, ¿no?

bueno, angela está dormida. está bien. sólo necesita descansar. pronto vamos a llegar a la ciudad de méxico y veremos cómo está roberto. angela...

( bocinazos ) captioned by the caption center wgbh educational foundation

annenberg media ♪ for more information on the college television course for information about this and other annenberg media programs call 1-800-learner and visit us at www.learner.org.

annenberg media ♪ t is the highest in the land. we also know that there are trial and appeals courts, federal, state, and municipal. but what we rarely stop to consider is how much we depend on our courts and the rule of law to resolve the inevitable conflicts among american citizens or between citizens and the government. i'm renee poussaint.

there are more than 18,000 american courts. some are federal, but most are created by the states, and since most crimes and civil disputes involve state laws, these courts are the ones most likely to affect us. at both federal and state levels, there are trial courts, which examine evidence and witnesses to determine the facts, and appellate courts, which review trial court decisions, applying the law to established facts.

sometimes, a case is tried and appealed in both state and federal courts, with surprisingly different results. on march 3, 1991, a routine traffic stop by los angeles police escalated into an 8-mile chase that led to one of the most infamous arrests in u.s. history. the officers didn't know it, but an amateur videographer was videotaping the incident. i think it's fair to say the rodney king videotape showed white americans what the downside of police looked like. man: almost all americans were disturbed, offended, by what they saw and were looking for justice. they struck me across the face real hard with a billy club after i was laying face down. poussaint: while no charges

were pressed against rodney king, a criminal investigation of the incident began at both the state and federal levels. usually when you have what lawyers call overlapping jurisdiction, where both the federal government and a state has the authority to prosecute somebody, usually what happens is the state goes first. i am announcing today... poussaint: on march 14, 1991, los angeles police officers stacey koon, lawrence powell, timmy wind, and theodore brisenio were indicted in california state court. they were charged with assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force. but even with the tape to serve as evidence, this would not be an easy case to prosecute. stuntz: if you're going after a bank robber or a murderer, there's really only one question -- did this guy do it or did he not do it? in this case, everybody knew the officers did it. kowalski: the state would have to prove that police officers, who have the obligation to use force to arrest somebody,

used too much force under the circumstances. poussaint: before the trial commenced, the defense moved to transfer the proceedings out of los angeles county. they argued that with all the pretrial publicity, it would be impossible to find an impartial jury. the trial judge denied the request. the defense then appealed to the california court of appeals. that's a panel of judges, no jury. their job is to just decide questions of law, no questions of fact. nobody had decided at this point whether the officers were guilty or not. in 99% of the cases, there is no right of appeal until a judgment is entered, until there is a final resolution by the trial court. occasionally, and very exceptionally, the appellate courts will consider a preliminary legal determination by the trial court to be so potentially prejudicial,

that they will agree to review that ahead of time and may even reverse the trial court. that's extraordinarily rare, but it does happen and it happened in the rodney king case on the venue question. poussaint: the defense was successful on appeal, and the trial was moved to the predominantly white conservative suburb of simi valley. serving on the jury were 10 whites, one filipino, and one latino. an african-american presence was conspicuously absent. stuntz: a downtown los angeles jury would've had at least three or four black members. this was a recipe for disaster if the jury wound up acquitting, because the black community of los angeles was bound to see this as a decision by a nearly all white jury to let off white cops who beat a black man. and that's exactly what happened. man: we the jury find the defendant, lawrence m. powell, not guilty of the crime of assault...

poussaint: on the night of april 29, 1991, public outrage exploded into riots on the streets of los angeles after it was announced that none of the officers was found guilty. kowalski: people were beginning to doubt whether police officers could be held accountable for their misconduct. poussaint: but ironically, the story wasn't over. late yesterday afternoon, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment. poussaint: although the state would be unable to try the officers again, the federal government could, and did. you know, i didn't do anything wrong so i can't believe that they are doing this again to me. the officers' first response was to say, "wait a minute, "we got tried in state court, we won. "the government's not allowed to just keep trying us "until they convict us. "i mean, that's a violation of what's called double jeopardy and that's unconstitutional." the government's not allowed to keep trying people until they convict them.

but when there's more than one government as we have in our system, a federal system, the federal government and a state government, both governments get a shot. technically the double jeopardy clause is that the sovereign can't try you twice for the same offense, but here we have the fiction that we have two separate sovereigns. one sovereign is the state of california, the other sovereign is the united states of america. poussaint: the federal trial of the same four officers began on february 25, 1993. this time the proceedings were held in downtown los angeles, and this time the jury had two african americans and one latino serving on it. moreover, the prosecution now had the benefit of hindsight. we were able to present more persuasive and convincing evidence. we used a little different theme than the state had used. we agreed that the police officers initially had a right to use force, but once they had gotten rodney king under control,

at about 30 seconds, the fight was over, he was a beaten man, and the police then became bullies who, just like in the schoolyard, kicked a man when he was down. and that we all know is something that you don't do. we learned that in the fourth grade. poussaint: the jury was convinced, and on april 16, 1993, koon and powell were convicted and sentenced to 30 months in federal correction camp. wind and brisenio were again acquitted. the verdict was greeted with a mix of joy and relief. kowalski: it has proven to the american public that police officers can commit crimes, and when they do commit crimes, they can be successfully prosecuted for it. the process wasn't very pretty -- the two trials for what looked like the same event. two different juries, one of the juries worried about what might happen if they acquit.

there are -- lots of publicity. there are a lot of things kind of ugly about the way the process worked in this case. but in the end, i think justice was done. and, you know, it's worth celebrating when justice is done. where does it say that the supreme court is the final interpreter of the constitution? not in the constitution. there the power of judicial review is not even mentioned. yet, thanks to a series of cases dating back to the 19th century, the exercise of judicial review has become common and politically controversial. the question of judicial power becomes all the more important because, as the 19th-century french politician and writer alex de tocqueville said, "in america, every political question becomes a legal question."

man: there's always been a debate, a tension, about the relationship of democracy and the u.s. supreme court. and the more courts take on big issues, whether it's abortion or presidential elections or affirmative action, the more these debates increase. poussaint: the 2000 presidential race between vice president al gore and texas governor george bush marked an historic moment in both political and judicial history. for the first time, the supreme court stepped in and ruled on a case that would decide the future president of the united states. their decision to take the case of bush v. gore was both unanticipated and highly controversial. the belief was that if the supreme court touched this case, it was like touching the third rail, that there was going to be repercussions as a result of the court getting itself too close to the political process. poussaint: the story of how the battle

for the highest office ended in the highest court began on a tense election night, tuesday, november 7, 2000. pildes: it was a roller coaster ride. it looked at one ment like the election was over and that gore was going to win, then the networks pulled back and said, wait a minute, it's not clear that's right. this race is simply too close to call. and we went to bed not knowing who had won the presidential election. america woke up and none of us knew who the next president was going to be. and the last time that had happened was a century and a quarter ago. and nobody knew how this was going to work. poussaint: it soon became clear that victory would hinge on one key state, florida, which held the 25 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. after an automatic recount, george bush's lead was reduced to a few hundred votes. neither candidate would concede. issacharoff: both camps had legal teams who were dedicated

to trying to figure out where there might be error where a few more votes might be picked up. the gore camp thought that it could get additional votes by having the voter cards recounted manually to determine whether the machines had miscounted and, hopefully, in the process pick up a few votes. we will therefore vigorously oppose the gore campaign's efforts to keep recounting over and over until it happens to like the result. poussaint: but despite the bush team's opposition, manual recounts would proceed in specified florida counties. man: i hope all americans agree that the will of the people, not a computer glitch, should select our next president. the gore campaign really had a valid point in saying you don't want to be slapdash. if you need to count everything twice, if you need to count everything three times, do it. and the bush people had a point when they said, it's a pretty scary business when you're having

the president of the united states selected by people who have their own preferences for who ought to win, holding up ballots to the sunlight, deciding whether there's enough of an indentation here or there. pildes: every day there was a surprise, a new twist, a new development. this court being brought in, that court being brought in. poussaint: on december 8, 2000, the florida supreme court handed vice president al gore a major victory by ordering a statewide manual recount. the court cited the standard provided by the florida legislature which says, "a vote shall be counted "where there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter." although the responsibility to oversee elections traditionally falls under the jurisdiction of the state, bush petitioned the united states supreme court. justice: why shouldn't there be one objective rule for all counties, and if there isn't, why isn't it an equal protection violation? man: i don't think there is

a series of objective interpretations. issacharoff: the gore team argued that florida law required that courts search out the actual intent of each voter. the bush team was saying, "no, that's not right. people have a constitutional right "to have their votes eated equally, "and that's not happening in florida. "and it's your job, supreme court, to step in and enforce the constitution." poussaint: on december 12, 2000, exactly five weeks after election day, the united states supreme court reversed the florida supreme court's decision and effectively handed florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency to george bush. pildes: the supreme court said the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law. that means everyone's vote has to be treated equally. that means the same standards have to be used throughout florida about what is a valid vote.

and the way the votes were being counted by hand, that wasn't going to happen in florida. what that was was a decision that says the constitution of the united states doesn't let florida do what it wants to do. that's judicial review. i mean, in a system where supreme court justices get to say things like that, they have, supreme court justices, have a lot of power. i have a lot to be thankful for tonight. i am thankful for america and thankful that we are able to resolve our electoral differences in a peaceful way. poussaint: the case was closed. bush began assembling his transition team. but the debate over bush v. gore was not over. in the 1800s, congress passed a statute that said that if there is a dispute of this sort in the future, it should come to congress, not the courts. so the question is,

why was it necessary for the court to intercede? why did it have to come in as the institution of first response in such a highly charged political matter? for many people, myself included, this was a dramatic mistake on the part of the court. even if it wasn't politically motivated as such, it was politically tarnished, and the court should have been more protective of its own role. when the supreme court made its decision, nobody knew how this was going to play out. let us see the vote! stuntz: democracies are fragile things. and i think a majority of the supreme court looked at what was happening in florida and they thought, we might not have a president on january 20th. there could be a disaster here. i mean, we might not have tanks in the street, but we also might not have a government. that's just not something we're willing to live with. so we're going to step in and, in effect, declare a winner now. now we live in a world in which the u.s. supreme court

decides more and more questions that are really central questions to how we're going to live our lives. and no case tests that question more than bush v. gore. so that's the tension. should the courts stay out of these kinds of issues? should the courts step in to make sure constitutional rights are protected? and there's no easy answer to that. views about that change over time. people are very divided about that question. but that's the nature of the system that we live in. in our society, we hold it sacred that the rule of law should be above politics. we want our judges to be independent. to encourage this, we protect some judges -- especially federal judges -- with lifetime appointments meant to free them from political pressure or public opinion. but in a democracy, we also expect judges to represent the people, which is why many states elect them.

this mixing of law and politics can work smoothly, or it can explode into bitter controversy. in 1977, liberal democratic governor jerry brown made a controversial appointment. he nominated attorney rose bird not merely to serve on the california state supreme court, but to become chief justice. bird: i think the governor broke precedent in many ways with my appointment, not only with the fact that i happen to be a woman, the fact that i'm 40 years of age, the fact that i don't come from the establishment. essentially i came out of poverty law. the fact that i come from a working-class background. i think all of those things are somewhat unique. poussaint: in a 1978 election, californians voted to retain chief justice bird, but by a shockingly narrow 51.7% margin.

most observers attributed this the controversy surrounding her appointment. but in 1986, when rose bird and two of her associate justices came up for another retention election, opponents began to organize early. things began to rumble in the background in 1984, when several groups were formed with the objective of defeating rose bird. now, it wasn't clear whether their sights went beyond rose bird or not. man: a frontal attack on several judges was something new in california, and most folk didn't know quite how to respond to it, so most of us didn't. that is, there was still a sense that somehow it wasn't dignified for judges to respond to attacks that were clearly political and clearly not based on the law. poussaint: conservative republican ronald reagan

had ridden a law-and-order platform to the white house, and now most republicans and some democrats were jumping on the same bandwagon. man: remember the timing, that the 1970s that set the stage for all that, that was a time of the huge increase in the crime rates and the huge decrease in law enforcement. poussaint: the tighter the election became, the more the danger arose that justices who were accused of being soft on crime might let public opinion sway their decisions. the hot-button issue of the campaign was the death penalty. it had been mired in controversy at the national and state levels. but in california, voters had resoundingly passed an initiative intended to be tough on criminals. unfortunately the toughness meant that it included many provisions that violated the u.s. supreme court ruling. when those issues eventually

came to the california supreme court, it perforce had to overturn the imposition of death in those cases. public opinion could not understand how a court could overturn the vote restoring the death penalty, which had been so overwhelmingly passed. poussaint: justice grodin had voted to overturn most death sentences. justice reynoso had voted to overturn nearly all. and chief justice bird had voted to overturn all 61 of the cases on which she'd sat. it is statistically virtually impossible to, for example in the case of justice bird, to never see a death penalty case which you can vote to affirm, ever. i can understand the frustration of people who believe very deeply that individuals who commit an ultimate act should be, uh, executed by the state.

but i think we've found historically that unless we're very careful in this area and we scrutinize the law and look at the trials to make sure that they're fair, that in fact sometimes innocent people can be executed. the oversimplification here was, "oh, jeez, you know, i don't care what the judges say. "the way they're acting is they're acting like "they're favoring these guys. "they're favoring these murderers. "they want to give 'em endless opportunities to escape justice." i used to tell people that if i believed what people were saying about me, i wouldn't vote for me. i mean, judges are supposed to enforce the law. and yet, in some ways, the big-lie technique was, look, they've overturned these death penalty cases. we have a death penalty law. therefore, they must not be obeying the law. poussaint: would californians uphold the importance of judicial independence? [ gavel raps ] or could conservatives persuade a majority of voters to turn the judges out? grodin: the polls showed massive undecided voters

for reynoso and myself, a great deal more decided voters against rose bird. of those who had an opinion, we were ahead two to one. so it was that great group of undecided folk that we had to worry about, but we didn't think we had that much to worry about. reynoso: the polls, if i remember correctly, had the chief justice losing but had all the other judges being confirmed. woman: rose bird "bye-bye, birdie" package. poussaint: in the last few weeks before the election, opponents launched an ad campaign designed to link grodin's and reynoso's names and fates to bird's. one spot ran over and over. an ad which asked, "do you want to keep the death penalty in california? if so, vote no." and then it showed rose's picture with an "x" on it.

"vote no on rose bird. "vote no on cruz reynoso. vote no on joseph grodin." poussaint: the strategy worked. rose bird lost two to one, and cruz reynoso and joseph grodin fell by narrow margins. did the 1986 election reveal flaws in the system that undermine judicial independence or did it show the worth of retention elections as a safety valve for the public to hold judges accountable? the answer depends on whom you ask. i think the 1986 election was like a gigantic earthquake in the way we perceive the courts and the relationship between the courts and other branches of government and the people, and that that earthquake has continued to have repercussions around the country.

the fact that the electorate has only felt on one occasion in the entire history of california that it was necessary to throw out a justice, seems to me to be ample evidence that the independence of the judiciary is not compromised or in danger. everyone who studies the american legal system has a favorite story about a frivolous use of the courts. for instance, a restaurant was sued by a man who claimed that eating their rich food had made him obese. a trivial example? sure. but it demonstrates a basic american belief -- that the courts can resolve almost any kind of dispute. in large measure, the uniqueness of our american political system stems from the role played by courts. no other nation grants them so much authority and power.

it works in our democracy because the judiciary symbolizes the ideal of the "rule of law," rather than the "rule of men and women." and we trust courts because they represent a certainty that comes from the application of a body of specialized knowledge, but as justice oliver wendell holmes once said, "certainty is an illusion." in fact, there is very little certainty and much room for interpretation of the law, which results in very different outcomes depending on who does the judging. in the supreme court, the justices make fundamental vital to american life. but at what cost? some scholars argue that judicial review simply provides one more check in a constitutional system that emphasizes checks and balances. others worry that judicial review is anti-democratic because judges invalidate the decisions of elected representatives. do we rely on courts too much?

you be the judge. for "democracy in america," i'm renee poussaint.

annenberg media ♪ for information about this and other annenberg media programs call 1-800-learner and visit us at www.learner.org.

annenberg media ♪ captioning is made possible by the annenberg/cpb project from the birthplace