gwen: just when you thought the news may slow down, we have a supreme court vacancy and that nukes and karzai and steel and tea party politician. tonight on "washington week." after nearly 90 years on the planet and 34 years on the bench, justice john paul stevens steps aside. we look at his past and the court's future. >> two old cold war fa foes agree to limit nuclear weapons. and a new partnership. >> this is the home of afghans and we own this place. and our factories are here for a cause for all of us. >> karzai. he's the democratically elected

leader of afghanistan. gwen: the republican party tries to rally its activist. >> retreat and reload and that's not a call for violence. >> and the party chairman. >> we're take steps to make sure we're even more, how should we say physically conservative in our spending. gwen: covering the week, joan biskupic. and joel sanger and mcmanus and charles babington of the associated press. >> this is "washington week," with gwen ifill. corporate funding is provided by -- >> we know why we're here, to give our war fighters every

advantage. >> to deliver technology that anticipates the future today. >> and help protect america everywhere. from the battle space to cyberspace. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to give our best for america's best. >> that's why we're here. ♪ snothse we are one people ♪ ♪ >> what do you care about? introducing the project. we move the world forward. >> additional funding for

"washington week" is provided by exxon mobile and the annenberg foundation and the public broadcasting and contributions from viewers like you. thank you. once again, hive from washington, moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening. after supreme court justice john paul stevens, the longest member of the bench and a liberal announced his pending environment, the president praised him and hinted at what is to come. >> while we cannot replace justice stevens' experience or wisdom. i'll seek somebody with similar qualities. independent mind and record of excellence and integrity and a fierce dedication to the ruling of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the american people. gwen: before we get to the handicapping that will consume the next few weeks, let's talk

about justice stevens. by the time he retires, he will become the court's third longest serving justice. he will leave a legacy, what will it be? >> it'll mostly be the last 15 or so years after he became the most senior justice of the liberals. and after others retired, because as the senior person on your ideological side, the left, the power to assign opinions and write them and he used that power quite absolutelyly. first of all, he himself penned important decisions for example, in 2004 when the supreme court said for the first time that the guantanamo bay detainees had a right to go to federal court, that was his handiwork but more importantly as the court moved much more to the right with republican appointees, justice stevens was able to navigate the middle and bring over sandra day o'connor, a reagan appointee and

then kennedy, for key decisions in areas, the guantanamo bay detainees and affirmative action in 2003, when justice o'connor was a key vote to uphold the university of michigan's affirmative action plan. justice stevens was very much aport of that. >> death penalty. >> yes, he wrote opinions and assigned key. is that limited the reach of the death penalty. for juveniles and mentally retarded. >> he was appointed by ford. did the court move or he move? >> it shows how a president's legacy, 1975 in december was when he came on and gerald ford obviously long gone and -- here is -- his man's life-time appointment. and a little of both, gwen. the court shifted. we had a court in 1975 that stevens looked like he was on the right-wing but he was a centrist then and the court shifted with almost every

appointment since he came on, with maybe one or two exceptions , the court became more conservative and he likes to point that out more than he likes to say that he changed but he did a bit. you compare his votes on affirmative action when he was new on the court to where he was today and he shifted to the left. he took seriously his role as the leader on the liberal side. >> could we talk about who comes next? this is president obama's second nomination for the court. he's getting a chance to shape a chunk of the court, presumably it'll be a liberal, but what will he look for? >> jimmy carter never had an opportunity in the four years of his presidency and here's president obama. this is important. now, he is again going to -- succeed a liberal. he's going to take someone who is a progressive liberal likely and have that person succeed john paul stevens.

it won't abradical shift but it'll bolster what -- with a much younger person, the left side of the court. and i presume that he'll do what when he's done with the lower court nominees, not be a flame theory. he won't pick some favorite liberals that make this court more interesting tgo up against somebody the likes of scalia. and some of the names on the short list that i could mention already are people who were considered seriously last year when the president chose sonia so the myer and elaina kagan and she was the first female to leave howard law school and the first female to take this prominent role as the government's top lawyer before the supreme court. i think she has a very strong chance, president obama did interview her last time and an appeals court judge from the chicago based seventh circuit, diane wood was also considered by president obama. she's someone that knew obama from chicago, from his time in chicago also.

and -- and also the third person who he interviewed last time who was runner-up, homeland security secretary, janette napolitano. she's had a rocky political career and that play hurt her. >> you said that stevens knew how to navigate the middle. how important is it to president obama who could also navigate the middle who play argue against somebody that would be considered a greater liberal? >> the president himself seems to be the person that wants to navigate the middle and he's getting pressure from the left saying, look, you know, can't we go back to the old days when a liberal was a liberal. when we talk about the left wing of the court now, we're not talking about thur good marshall or william brennan, we're talking about people that are much more aaccommodationist. >> and practicing mag -- mag mat i think and leading over the others that are to the right of

brennan and marshall. there's going to be a hot of pressure in that regard from his base, from the left base, but how much he wants, that's a big question. >> who becomes the liberal leader once he's gone? >> the next one will be ginsburg. she's 77 and had two serious bouts with cancer. she'll be the person and have power of assignment for the left and the question is, can she build the same coalition. >> huge develop today. other big developments occurring as well on the other side of the atlantic and deep in the white house and next week in washington as dozens of world leaders gathtory talk about the nuke here future. we saw the pomp and circumstance in prague with russian president med ved. how much of this is keeping the president closer to keeping his promise. >> and i went to interview the

president earlier this week and the first thing he repeated was something he said before in speeches is nuke here weapons are not going to be obsolete in his life-time but he thinks he could make a difference in pushing the country back in that direction. and all three things that we have now seen. and the new nuclear strategy that came out this past week, the signing of the start treaty and next week's nuclear summit which is going to be the biggest gathering of world leaders on a single top pick brought together by a american president, since franklin roosevelt called the meeting that created the u.n. he did not live long enough before it happened. it is going to be a big and wild week. how do these come together? the start treaty which was signed in prague yesterday, it is all about trying to close down the legacy of old cold war stuff. this is about limiting the weapons that we and the russians put out. as a treaty, it is perfectly fine but the cuts are not very

deep. the new nuclear strategy that came out earlier in the week, that was really interesting. first it commits the united states not to build nuclear weapons. secondly, it comes very close to but not quite over the line of creating a no first use commitment by the u.s. what president obama said was, if you are a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in good standing. we'll come back to that in a moment, then the united states would never threaten to use a nuclear weapon against you, even if you attack the u.s. with biological weapons. >> they're in trouble with conservatives, as well as his failure to go far enough, got him in trouble with liberals. >> it did, and this policy did not go as far as the liberals would have liked or as far as the conservatives feared but they leaped on it and sarah palin did in particular and then president obama told george stephanopoulos that he didn't think sarah palin was the most

skilled nuke here strategist that he wanted to listen to. the most interesting thing in the new strategy is that it creates this exemption that says if you're outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, we play paint a big x on you. that was about iran and north korea. >> if you have the exemption and they don't fit in the new structure, what incentive is there for them to behave? >> good question, chuck. and in the bush administration, they called iran and nrt korea rogue states and president obama in the interview called them outliars. >> i noticed that. what difference does it make? >> the difference is if they changed their behavior, they could come in with the immunities of the treaty and have a grn tee that the u.s. would never use a weapon against them. he was saying they could change behavior without changing the regime. >> you mentioned sarah palin. one complained he didn't make

and he bunt as dismissive about, is we're not going to be as safe. what does the property say to that if we hedge back, are we as safe as -- as he asserts? >> the nuclear arsenal we have right now is useful, really only for detering a nuclear attack on the united states of the conventional kind. and -- from russia or china, which seems like the least likely problem. the president said many times, he thinks a much bigger problem is you lose materials somewhere and a terrorist gets a hold of it and sets it off in an american city, deterrence doesn't help you if that. that's what the nook here summit is all about. >> and what -- what can you really accomplish there, david, what is it? a day and a half summit? what does that cover? >> more pomp and circumstance. the end of the interview, he said, we're not going to just

have some gazi communiqué at the end, but the language at the -- the language looks pretty gazi to me. they're going to try to get each country and i think there's 47 to issue specific action plans as to what they'll do to lock down material. in part that was because there was a united nations resolution, that required them to do that and almost no one paid attention to it. >> we'll be waiting for the gridlock in washington. while you're here. not that you're not welcome. >> stay on the subways. gwen: while obama is making nice in prague, the last few months has seen a steadily deteriorating relationship with hamid karzai. the pattern is familiar. criticism from karzai pushed back from the president or the secretary of state or the national security advisor mutual claims of misunderstanding, rinse and repeat.

doyle just returned from kandahar, the start of a summer offensive. that play provide a clue to the karzai buzzal or is it a puzzle? >> it is a puzzle but it is so familiar it should be less of one. the impending offensive in kandahar is part of it. karzai is an after gadge politician and he's emotional. a little history. he ran for releeks last year, saying he was the one afghan national leader who would stand up to the foreigners. that's a paradoxical claim, because it is the foreigner's aide and troops that are keeping him in power. that was the pitch he made. and as you'll recall from last year, the obama administration didn't want him to win the election. they spent part of the year hoping they would find someone else to win it. and politicians keep grudges. and now, car stcomply is under a lot of pressure on a lot of

fronts. the obama administration and others are pushing him on the corruption issue. and that is not easy for him to clean up because a great deal of the corruption comes from his own government, his own supporters and his own family. they're pressing him because this offensive this summer in which a large part of the -- of the obama surge is going into conda har. and that's the karzai family's hometown. they want karzai, the americans want karzai to stand up and endorse and even lead that offensive as a political leader. he went down to kandahar last week to give a speech before a council of the elders. the hope was that he would say this offensive is a good thing. he couldn't do it. he got up this, and with general mccrystal next to him and he heard the complaints of the local leaders who are terribly worried about an offensive happening in their town. he said, i hear your complaints, i will make sure this doesn't go

ahead, unless you're comfortable with it. he only got halfway there and that was part of what led to the back and forth. i have been struck by the tone of the white house. for weeks they have beyoncing corruption has to get cleaned up. if this guy does not create a force that we could transfer over to, well the u.s. will never be able to get out. so forth. today the theme was very much, they -- a misunderstanding and nobody is leaning that hard on corruption. really wonderful guy and president has been writing him letters. >> not quite wonderful. but legitimate was a word they used and respected was a word. wonderful you're not going ah to hear. there's enormous from ustation in the white house and the aid stration -- administration over this. there's two schools of thought on how to deal with karzai. you could be nice. that's what bush tried. not many results or you could be tough. >> talk to him every two weeks.

>> in those days i understand he ignored the tough messages because he heard he was bush's best friend. you could come out tough, which is what biden did. and now he has his a back up. now the administration is playing good cop, bad cop. tough message, do something we didn't mean to threaten you or be disrespectful. nothing is showing results. >> some people say it is bad chemistry between the leaders but it is substantive lacking on the ground. >> it is substantive because the administration has concluded that karzai is probably not part of the solution in afghanistan. it is -- so what they're trying to do is build up local leaders and effective ministers. how could you build things that work around him? what they do want karzai to do or not obstruct, not remove the people and not get in the way. the relationship is still is

important. >> politician aside, how is the war going? >> that's the fundamental question. >> and you're exactly, politician can't be put aside. we'll know after the summer offensive, general mccrystal is acutely aware that president obama's timetable has a review in it this december. we focused on the july date. this december is the first review. he wants to show results. here's the problem, he knows he could show military results for all of that to work, there has to be a government that comes in behind and this has to be an effective police force that comes behind. those depend in part on karzai's g. and that's lagging. >> we'll talk to you more about your trip and impressions on the webcast. you'll have too call it up. and finally tonight, we look at the republican party. with 2010 and 2012 elections looming. the administration is looking for -- looking for a election

strategy. a michigan congressman that nearly derailed the health care pill. >> last night and early this morning, i informed democratic leaders and key supporters i would not seek re-election to congress. i have struggled with this decision and i wanted to leave a couple of times and i thought there's one more job to be done. >> but republicans may have squabbles to settle among themselves first. the biggest one concerning lightning rod party chairman michael steele. >> i know people want to make more of it than there is. the 71% on capital hill, the unnamed republicans who don't like me, well i understand that. i'll continue to work hard and try to win moraises to get a majority in the congress this november. >> thank goodness he understands it. >> the two distractions, the tea party conservatives and michael steele, which is the biggest one? >> steele may be the easier one

to deal with in a way. most of the republicans i have talked with say he's probably all right in terms of holding on to his job. that doesn't mean he'll effective, they could get around him. the big question mark and the fascinating story with republican politician now is the tea party. and the question there is, can the republicans harness that energy or do they get consumed by it? and i think it is the best political story to watch in the coming year. gwen: is there such a thing as the tea party or is it just a handy plate way of describing people unhappy about different things. much as what happened on the left, if you will recall. >> very much so. democrats are wiping their brow in a way. we went through that for years, with the anti-war hippy that is gave our party a bad name and it was centrist and it took the democrats a long time to live that down and now they see, it is the democrats that are hoping

that's how the effect will be on the republicans. you're right, this is no organization or tea party but there's a lot of energy and it is remarkable and some polls, i'm not sure you should trust them say more people identify themselves as tea party people than republicans. >> how effective are they? gwen: in massachusetts they played a role and how do we know and the other republicans know how effective they are sf >> we don't know and we won't know until the november elections. and really good point because tea party activists as we call them, they turn out for rallies. if you talk to them, near thought political people. i haven't voted in the past and so you have -- so, perhaps they are political now. perhaps they will absolutely go to the polls, but it is also possible that after this sort of head rush and all of this enthusiasm, they play turn their backs on the system. remember, they're not so crazy about republicans either.

they, that's the danger for the republican party. >> american history is filled with these splinter parties like this. happened in 1800s and happened when teddy roosevelt tried to run for a second-term. when you look at the history t almost always suggests the bunout, is there a reason to believe there's a different din mick under way. >> you're right about roosevelt's bull moose party. repeatedly throughout american history a third party will not work. ross perot and what have you. if the tea party becomes a third party, literally on the ballot, it almost sure my will fail. what the republicans are hogue they could do is say, look, we are obviously, we're the conservative party of the two parties but we're an acceptible, we're conservative enough and that's where they're having problems. these tea party activists are saying to the most prominent republicans, no you're not conservative enough and i'm as unhappy with you as i am. >> which is why palin had to go to minnesota and campaign for

mccain. >> we'll talk about that. if you were a republican senator or governor or whatever thinking about running for president, you would have a temptation to go out and capture that set of tea party militants. has anyone succeeded in that? >> doilt has said in many ways, this is frustrating for people, mitt romney, one thing that property him to prominence is health care work. and governor that took stimulus money and now -- those guys are getting clobbered by the tea party people and they're having to do this dance to explain why they did that. gwen: it occurs to me maybe the tea party is going to rescue somebody like michael steele, he says i'm an outside ir, and that's why the insiders hate me? >> i suppose, gwen, he had a meeting a couple of months ago. it was a little awkward and the tea party people see the r.n.c. as part of a political structure

they're not enamored of. >> we'll see how that plays out. thank you, everyone. we'll keep an eye on the nuclear summit meeting next week. for full coverage, tune in every night to the pbs news hour and when you have a minute, check us out online for the latest reporting from the panelist and send comments and questions for the "washington week" webcast extra. find us at www.pbs.org/"washington week." and see you next week on "washington week." >> download our weekly podcast and take it with you. it is the "washington week" podcast at "washington week" online at www.pbs.org >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel, yet natural gas

has impurities like co-2 in it. and controled freeze zone is going to remove the gas so it can be put in the atmosphere. and i'm optimistic about this, because this technology could be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. >> additional funding for "washington week" is provided by boeing. and pepsi. and the annenberg foundation and the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.