john paul stevens. from the navy to the bench, john paul stevens has devoted himself to service to our nation. after earning a bronze star in world war ii, stevens returned home to pursue a career in law. as an attorney, he became a leading practitioner of anti- trust law. and as a supreme court justice, he dedicated his long and distinguished tenure to applying our constitution with fidelity and independence. his integrity, humility, and steadfast commitment to the rule of law have fortified the noble vision of our nation's founders. [the medal is presented] pat summitt. pat summitt is an unparalleled figure in collegiate sports. over 38 seasons, she proudly led the university of tennessee lady volunteers to 32 sec tournament and regular season championships and eight national titles, becoming the all-time winningest coach in ncaa basketball history. on the court, coach summitt inspired young women across our country to shoot even higher in pursuit of their dreams. off the court, she has inspired us all

[the medal is presented] [applause] john paul stevens. from the navy to the bench, john paul stevens has devoted himself to service to our nation. after earning a bronze star in world war ii, stevens returned home to pursue a career in law. as an attorney, he became a leading practitioner of anti- trust law. and as a supreme court justice, he dedicated his long and distinguished tenure to applying our constitution with fidelity and independence. his integrity, humility, and steadfast commitment to the rule of law have fortified the noble vision of our nation's founders. [the medal is presented] [applause] pat summitt. pat summitt is an unparalleled figure in collegiate sports. over 38 seasons, she proudly led the university of tennessee lady volunteers to 32 sec tournament and regular season championships and eight national titles, becoming the all-time winningest coach in ncaa basketball history. on the court, coach summitt inspired young women across our country to shoot even higher in pursuit of their dreams. off the court, she has insp

the chief justice who rendered the opinion and that was a packed courtroom and retired justice john paul stevens came in and and michele bachmann. justice roberts was the one who said initially that the individual mandate based on the commerce clause, as was written into the law some people thought this was going to be overturned and congress saying if you fail to get health insurance, there is a penaltier if that, a financial penalty. justice roberts called that attacks and said that congress does have the right to tax. therefore, the individual mandate is constitutional. justice kennedy, speaks for the minority, including justices thomas aleto, and scalia. justice kennedy said you changing what the congress intended and never used the word tax. how can we all of a sudden, the court say this is a tax if you don't sign up for healthcare. this is interesting. and three of the justices spoke. initially roberts and then kennedy and justice ruth bader ginsburg talked about why she thought the whole thing should have been okay. it wassing about -- interesting and there. >> from the inside, i am curio

during oral argument, justice john paul stevens often began his line of questioning with a polite, "may i interrupt?" or "may i ask a question?" you can imagine the lawyers would say, "okay" after which he would, just as politely, force a lawyer to stop dancing around and focus on the most important issues in the case. and that was his signature style, modest, insightful, well-prepared, razor-sharp. he is the third-longest serving justice in the history of the court. and justice stevens applied, throughout his career, his clear and graceful manner to the defense of individual rights and the rule of law, always favoring a pragmatic solution over an ideological one. ever humble, he would happily comply when unsuspecting tourists asked him to take their picture in front of the court. and at his vacation home in florida, he was john from arlington, better known for his world-class bridge game than his world-changing judicial opinions. even in his final days on the bench, justice stevens insisted he was still "learning on the job." but in the end, we are the ones who have learned from him. w

going to have allowed president obama to do so far to go to the retired south carolina justice john paul stevensthe justice who loved his son citizens united says the citizens united is not going to stand the test of time. this year republican operatives like the koch brothers the the former head of the bush white house you know karl rove i find it amazing that the bush white house is at the three hundred million dollars is leading the charge against obama nobody's talking about it is the bush white house and karl rove and the chamber of commerce have pledged over a billion dollars to defeat obama walker in scott walker in wisconsin is outspending tom barrett seven to one. i had tomorrow's race should we just change the rules now post citizens united since you know the billionaires are going to probably spend twice as much on the national election to spend seven times as much in the governor's election and just kind of handicap it say whoever you know since since there has been outspent seven to one whoever gets more than thirteen percent of vote wins. whoever gets well if barry gets one thirtee

retired supreme court justice john paul stevens has indicated current members of the supreme court mayion in the case. >> it will be necessary to explain why the first amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to other non-voters. >> let's bring back vice president gore and michael waldeman, from the nyu school of law. thank you for staying with us. the issue of citizenship united has turned campaign finance upside down, let loose this tsunami of money to no good effect. as a first amendment matter, the case may have been right. the consequences have been horrific. mr. vice president, what do you think we should do to solve this problem? >> well, i am afraid that it's going to require a constitutional amendment. i am fully aware of how difficult that process is. and how it should be only used as a last resort. but having looked at the legal analyses of this problem, i don't see any alternative. i don't think there are adequate signs that the members of this court are going to change their minds. i think that the majority is hard set to try to

she was inside and the retired justice john paul stevens gauge and sat in the front row.evens came and sat in the front row. so it was packed. >> president obama said the supreme court decision is a victory for people all over the country saying the decision upholds the fundamental principle that in america no one should fall into financial ruin because of an illness. >> we will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it where we can, but what we won't do, what the country can't afford to do, is refight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. with today's announcement it's time for to us move forward, to implement and where necessary improve on this law. on this la >> while the ruling is seen as a political victory for the president, many see it as an energizing outcome for republicans. the gop took over the house in 2012 partly by attacking the healthcare law as a form of government overreach. house leaders are already scheduling another vote to repeal the law. >>> immediately following the announcement the c

and when you see there's a history of voter fraud in this country, justice john paul stevens, when he voted, as part of the majority, the 6-3 majority to uphold indiana's voter law, there is an extensive and long history of voter fraud, and he, lest we forget, was one of the liberal lions of the supreme court. >> let me offer some facts. >> roland, let me throw something up. voter fraud could be widespread, i don't know. the convictions on voter fraud, four in pennsylvania since 2004. obviously, the president's victory was more than 2,000 votes. i'm not saying we know every case, but four, ryan. >> erin -- >> roger rot unanimous was not the only person who ever engaged in insider trading. but it's very hard to identify and prosecute. there are many crimes where you don't necessarily identify the people. and we're not trying to engage in some process where we're prosecuting,in tim dath, et cetera. we're just saying thattel going forward, let's have a neutral, reliable way to be sure that people are who they say they are. we're not trying to go back and engage in recriminations about th

john paul stevens, who retired just a couple of years ago was 90 years old. he was -- he is still going strong today. so anyway, it's difficult. but it's true. the court is very much divided between four liberal-leaning justices. >> that's a term we use looseley, but i think it's accurate for some purposes, many purposes. and, five conservative-lieanning justice anthony keyed, the decider. >> can we talk quickly about the arizona decision today? >> yeah. yes. >> that decision really didn't do a whole lot. although it did surprise some people because the court upheld the federal scheme and set the state law cannot pre-empt the federal immigration laws. did it surprise you at all? >> i don't know. i don't know that i was surprised either way. i think my own view is that it was the liberal wing of the court that prevailed in that decision. there were four provisions of the arizona statute in front of the court. they held that three of them were superseded by the federal immigration law. they did uphold the fourth. it was the most controversial. it authorized sta

even retired justice john paul stevens showed up when the entire office of the solicitor general came in that also upped the electricity. they were visiting senators in the audience, the press section was filled to overflowing even behind the pillars and the regular pews so, yes, it was quite electric. the justices seemed very calm and most of them seemed tired. (laughs) >> brown: well, their work is done for this term. marcia coyle of the national law journal, thanks as always. my pleasure. >> woodruff: and now we have two takes on the court's judgment from senior members of congress. first, we are joined by representative steny hoyer of maryland. he is the democratic whip in the house. i talked to him this evening. congressman steny hoyer, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you, judy, thank you. >> pelley: what does the supreme court ruling mean for the country? >> i think it means that people can have confidence that they are, in fact, going to have access to affordable quality health care and that we will bring prices down. as c.b.o. has said over the long run, over a tr

by the way it was leading by the court's leading liberal at the time, john paul stevens, we've seen a of elections. in a 2010 election, a midterm election barack obama was not on the ballot, indiana and georgia, turn out went up for everyone, including minority turn out. i don't understand where this is coming from. this is a completely fact-free argument. bill: byron. >> in fact the only explanation i can come up with is there are some people that must know there are some shenanigans behind the curtain and they believe photo id could be a problem in preventing them from doing that. bill: she called this frivolous, all right. she is making the point that republicans are trying to occupy eric holder's time. i think the words she used was m ma tphop replies his time and undermine his name. that is a heavy charge. >> it is, eric holder is charged with enforcing the nation's laws. i mean are republicans trying to interfere with his enforcement of the antitrust laws or some other laws? it's not the case. we do know this is a big issue for democrats. they will be pushing this a lot, making

in 2008 it was certain justice souter would leave and john paul stevens they were on their way out.it is less certain 2012 because ruth beyer ginsberg is the oldest 78 but in good health and full of energy and often said her idol brandeis served until 82 which would take her through the next term. justice scalia, justice kennedy 75. once you are into the upper seventies it is not always your choice. also, politics plays of big part. ruth ginsberg would be considered the being if barack obama is president and theron made the same thing with justice scalia adjust this kennedy would be more likely to leave under the mitt romney presidency. >> host: is there roberts court? >> absolutely. it is the story of american politics. the biggest development is the evolution of the republican party. republicans dominated for decades weather john marshall hahn out of -- holland, lewis powell, sandra day o'connor. justice alito and john roberts reflect the modern party. the polarization of congress winnow seat in the united states supreme court. that is the roberts court that is more conservative a

. >>> on tuesday, retired justice john paul stevens received the presidentialal of freedom for his long on the supreme court, and months before stepping down from the high court, he presented the dissenting opinion which ushered in campaign contributions. and just this week justice stevens warned that the citizens united case had to be inevitably revisit and it is necessary why the first amendment protection provides greater protection for some nonvoters than to that of o other nonvoters. here with me is karen finney, and mattia go teand douglas bri kenji yoshino. >> well, this struck down the mccain feingold act which said that campaigns were restricted on what they could spend and it opened up the door to say this corporations are people, and protected under the first amendment and second, people are guarant guaranteed a certain amount of speech, and therefore could spend unimt willed amounts of money in these elections. >> what i have found interesting in the post citizens united moment is that frank rich drew our attention to this in his co column suggesteded that people are corpora

. >> i have intrude john paul stevens last week.atest decision, you know, i am blanking whether it was 30 or 40%. it's an amazingly low number of approval ratings americans have of the supreme court. and i asked justice stevens if he thought some of that was due to bush v. gore and he said he thought most of it was due to citizens united justice stevens has been saying that case has got to be heard once again and reconsidered. you know, anybody who reads the wonderful piece about a month ago that scribes the evolution. citizens united indicates. ted olson who was the counsel in that case he argued the case on narrow statutory grounds. and yet the court wound out having this huge pronouncement on constitutional grounds. it really was an abuse of the normal procedure that the court is supposed to use in considering cases. supposed to decide cases as narrowly as possible and not get the constitutional issues that they are otherwise deciding. they did the opposite. >> they did the opposite because that's what john roberts, chief justice