john paul stevens who many would categorize in the great service as not a bash liberal, voted in favor of the government in that case, that the flag was unique. that is when i changed my mind after reading the column that every american should have seen the argument. i knew how poignant at the time it was, especially when the greatest generation was still with us and john paul stevens was part of that generation. how could you not protect the flag of the united states? i have been a proponent for a long time, and i've been very, at the same time, sensitive to the court'sceps of tradition that's part of the greatness traditions are good and sound, and there should be a reason for departing from tradition. there is a powerful reason to change and to reform, and that is what justice sandra day o connor calls, opposes cameras in the court, and i greatly respect the other view, but profoundly disagree. in connection with her effort to respond to what she calls the collapse of sighing -- civic education in the united states. they are one of the places where we are very end gauged with the co

john paul stevens, who many would categorize during his great service as an unabashed liberal voted in favor of the government in that case, that the flag was unique. that's when i changed my mind, after i read kilpo's column that every american should have seen that argument, because i knew how poignant at the time it was, especially when the greatest generation was still with us, and john paul stevens was part of that generation. how could you not protect the flag of the united states. and so i have been a proponent for a long time and have been, at the same time, sensitive to the court's sense of tradition, it's part of its greatness. traditions can be very good, and they can be very sound, and there should be a reason for departing from tradition. so this is very burkian. but there is a powerful reason to change and to reform. and that is what justice sandra day o'connor calls, even though she opposes cameras in the court -- and i greatly respect the contrary view, but i profoundly disagree with it -- in connection to her effort to respond what she calls the collapse of civic educa

ruining the mole stevens liberal or conservative i depend so much on the context of the issue john paul stevens is an activist progressive on the supreme court and when he was asked what his dead was and to the sorry what i've read. when he was given a chance to opine on the question of the constitutionality of voter id and whether it constituted suppression are not he all third the opinion saying that this was a valid concern and there were other states. who said oh yes my point here. is it is ranjana shiels manical it is not axial that is that republicans think this democrats think that if you look at the votes it is here and here is paul weyrich telling republicans roll taishan work yes. how many of our chris have what i call but goo goo syndrome good government they want everybody to vote. i don't want everybody to vote elections are not won by a majority of people they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now go matter of fact our leverage in the election is quite candid like go drop out of your voting populace go down so you know this is the guy who started t

or if it was extraordinary when john paul stevens steps aside in the outpouring of affection and admiration for a great man but an enormous affection for the man and his remarkable service to our country on the supreme court. we did not get to see that either. isn't that a shame? even the ceremonial part. let's at least have some of the ceremonies broadcast. >> when a portion of the justice kagan swearing in was broadcast. >> but it was not in the course. >> was in a conference room. >> they don't want to preach that wall. the chief justice o'connor you said congress should not tell the supreme court what to do on this. and one of the questions from the audience is how can congress help me move to more transparency of the supreme court? to other panels think it should play a role? >> if there is to questions separation of powers a situation not so long ago took the view the papers were their own yet even though the taxpayers have paid for them and paid for the president's salary that they belonged to the president. congress stepped in as a result of the nixon impeachment and said no. those

or the moving, it was extraordinary when john paul stevens stepping aside, the outpouring of affectionand admiration for a great man, lots of obviously disagreements jurisprudential and constitution but enormous affection for the man and for his remarkable service to our country on the supreme court. we didn't get to see that either. that's a shame. at least a ceremonial part and maybe that's an incremental -- allen, if you're in incrementalist, let's at least have some of the ceremonies broadcast. broadcast. >> one portion of justice kagan's swearing in was broadcast speakers but it wasn't in the court. it was in a conference room. >> right. they don't want to breach the wall. but anyway, chief justice o'connor, you just said that congress should be telling the supreme court what to do on this, and one of the questions from the audience is, how can congress help move towards more transparency in the supreme court? the other panelists think that congress can play a role or should play a role, or -- spent i suppose -- there's two questions, the separation of powers question and the enfo

the importance of the retirement of john paul stevens. ruth bader ginsburg is the leader of the left side of the court. seen several examples of where the court does like to take baby steps. in the voting rights act when a couple of terms ago they came right up to the edge of striking down the voting rights act. and then out of taxes said we are going to leave it up to congress. this is out today. we think congress has not done their homework. have another chance. they didn't. the court then take the next step. we also saw when the supreme court ruled for the first time what the second amendment means. every term brings some narrower slice of exactly what the fourth amendment applies to. is it the person sitting behind the driver? there's always some new tiny little slice about what the fourth amendment provides. then you get a case involving the gun rights. for the first time in our nations history the supreme court said what is the second amendment mean? is the supreme court said the second amendment protects your right to own the gun i

john paul stevens many categorized unabashed liberal voted in favorite of the government. that's when i changed my mind after i read his column that every american should have seen that argument. i knew how poignant at the time it was. especially when the greatest generation was with us. how can you not protect the flag of the united states. i have have been a proponent for a long time, i've been very, at the same time, sensationive to the tradition that's part of its greatness, traditions can be very good and they can be very sound. there should be a reason for departing from tradition. there is a powerful reason to change and to reform. that is what justice sandra day o'connor called. she opposes cameras in the court. i greatly respect the contrary view but i profoundly disagree. in connection with her effort to respond what she called the collapse of civic education in the united states. i'm very thankful that every university has been called on by the justice to be one of the places where we are very engaged with the community and local school systems. but the point i'

especially when "the greatest generation" was with us and john paul stevens was part the generation. how could you not protect the federal flag of the united states? and so i have been a proponent for a long time and at the same time sensitive to the tradition. it's part of the greatness. traditions can be very good and very sound. there should be a reason for departing from traditions. it's very murky. there's a powerful reason to change and to reform. that is what justice sandra day o'connor calls even though she opposes camera the court. i greatly respect the view but i profoundly disagree. in connection with to her effort what she calls the collapse of civic education in the united. i'm thank of the that baylor university has been -- engaged with the community in local school system and to so forth. the point i'm making is here thoughtful justices who are concerned and that apock lip pick term is hers. think of how wonderful it would be for those school children who maybe get in to the argument with those 250 or 300 seats people court in different ways. you would think we would k

aiming or the route the importance of their time at a john paul stevens and ruth bader ginsburg as the leader of the left side of the court. i want to expand on the incrementalist thing because we've seen several examples of where the court does like today, prefers to take baby steps. we saw it in the voting rights act when a couple of terms ago the supreme court came right up to the edge of striking down the voting rights act in the case that amy referred to that came out of texas. and then said, we're going to leave it up to congress. we think the data that forces states like georgia to have preclearance automatically is out of date. we think congress hasn't done its homework. testing, is this working, congress? you have another chance and you didn't. the courts took the next day. we saw in the gun control case when supreme court ruled for the first time with the second and enemies. that's one of the faceting things about covering the u.s. supreme court. yes, every term brings some narrower slice of exactly what the fourth amendment applies to. is if the person is sitting behind the

amy noted the importance of the retirement of john paul stevens and ruth bader ginsburg as the leader of the left side of the court. i want to expand on the incrementalism thing because we have seen several examples where the court does -- prefers to take baby steps. we saw in it in the voting rights act when a couple of terms of go the supreme court came up to the edge of striking down the voting voting rights then amy referred to the boat that came out of texas. we think the data that forces states like georgia to have preclearance automatically. you have another chance so the court took the next step. we also saw the gun control case with the supreme court ruled that the second amendment means. that is one of the fascinating things about covering the u.s. supreme court. every term brings narrow or slice of exact it with the fourth amendment applies to. is it the person sitting behind the driver in the car or the person on the other side of the card? there is always some tiny slice of what the fourth amendment provides that then you get a case like the case involving the gun rights.