justices were federals appeals justices.'m not saying eight of the nine should be, but there should be senators like hugo black, people who have broader experience. >> if the best we can say is that elena kagan hasn't been a judge, although nominated to the d.c. circuit, she basically might as well have been because she very much lives in the world. >> charlie: she was a part of the system that leads to appellate decisions. >> correct. >> charlie: all right. so let's talk about -- first, one -- justice alito. where would you -- i mean, any surprises from him? i'm only taking the three most recent. >> we should listen to what presidents say when they talk about the supreme court. president bush said, "i want to appoint justices in the mold of scalia and thomas." that's what he did. and yes, there are a handful of opinions where justice alito differs from thomas and justice scalia but just a handful. he's very conservative across the board. >> charlie: adam? >> i would even say that he -- you wouldn't think this was possible,

justice with the possible exception of justice ginsberg and justice white. that strikes me as quite right. i do think it is also true, however, that justice stevens' view became more liberal overtime. it is especially apparent regarding the legal world's most hotly contested issues. he is often referred to as a maverick and his views are sometimes described as quirky. again, there is a reason for this mission. it is my understanding that during his first time at the court he set a record for a first-year justice. this landed him the nickname "the lone ranger." i think it would be misleading to deny the fact that justice was in a quirkiness more conservative situation judicially. i do not want to play a game of jurisprudential got jet. i am here to view the justice stevens' admiral career as a point of departure. -- admirable career as a point of departure. i come to praise judicial inconsistency. i am going to talk about three different areas -- criminal procedure, abortion, and affirmative action. three cases, all from the justice stevens' first full year a

, chief justice roberts, followed by justice alito followed by justice sotomayor last year and today for the first time we saw justice kagan on the bench. that's a lot of change, mostly not consequential change because the switches tended to be ideologically one for one with the one exception of justice alito for justice o'connor which did shift the court to the right. >> charlie: all about the supreme court. next. >> funding for "charlie rose" was provided by the following. ♪ >> charlie: additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: the united states supreme court began its new term, today. for the first time in its history, three three women on the bench. all eyes will be on new member justice elena kagan but because she was president obama's solicitor general she will refuse herself from cases. those cases include support for religious schools, illegal immigration, violent video games

from these decidings almost a century ago, the justice then goes on to quote justice jackson.mber had spent time in nuremberg at the war crimes trial, spent tile in postworld war ii germany and wrote stiring words about the importance of the amendment and people to be secure in their houses. again had -- had robustly endorsed the exclusionry rule. with -- just one sentence, i'll reed you the courts can protect only indirectly and through the medium of excluding evidence of goes obtained that are frequently guilty. it was taken as a bedrock principle by his predecessors that the exclusionry rule was necessary and important in -- in the justice started, i think from that premise as he so often did in his decisions whether they be in the majority or the dissent. and the second thing that you see in the justices leon opinion -- again, i think a theme that runs throughout his jurisprudencence is -- a deep understanding and a deep belief in the importance and integrity of the federal cords, just -- justice stevens was the postwatergate appointment. we know one of the reasons he was

this is the problem with the ordinary in justice. there are collateral consequences, and we end up paying for them as taxpayers. we pay for them because people cannot get a federal grants for loans for school. they go on welfare. they do not get to go to their jobs. these are the hidden cost we rarely see. why do they love him so much if he was doing these things that are against the law? the bottom line is when hank saw of lawyer cared about the client, he would make an effort to help that lawyer, said there is one woman who is a prostitute, and she had a lawyer who keeps doing her case pro bono. she keeps getting arrested for prostitution, and each time he tried to get her help, but when no one was looking, that is when the worst thing happened. there is a guy who is the town drunk, and his name is john casey. i met him, and he was drinking an enormous 10 of the year. it was of vero -- enormous can of beer. it was unfaia barrel. he was thrown into jail. casey walked back into the court and says, what happened to my case? the judge

i want to begin -- to the 2010 justice summit. there must be justice. i want to begin by welcoming you. i am a public defender here in san francisco, and i will be overseeing the first part of the program today. we are going to be talking about something is called ordinary in justice. if you look if the word, it says, an unjust act, and within the criminal justice system, there are a lot of fun just as if that occur. we just do not hear about them. -- a lot of unjust acts that occur. we have probably all heard there have been 150 human beings who have been exonerated after being sent to death row. that means 150 people in this country were tried and convicted and sentenced to death and then exonerated face on mostly scientific evidence. some served years. some serve a eighth. we hear about those stories. what we do not often hear about is how the justice system was wrong in other ways that affect everyday people throughout this country, and that is what we are going to be talking about today. we are talking about failures, like of when when a person is

>> i think justice ginsberg has addressed this and so has justice o'connor in the past. in general they would say that it doesn't make a substantive difference. but it can make a difference in certain cases. and we've actually seen that. we've, we saw it in the term in which the court took up whether it was reasonable to strip search a middle school girl. justice ginsberg brought a great perspective to that case having raised a daughter. also i think there have been some political scientists who studied this issue, and they say that fe pale judges often make a difference in sex discrimination cases. >> brown: you're nodding. >> sure. three is a magic number when it comes to a group the size of the supreme court. because for the first time there's a critical mass, so it's not just ginsburg speaking for women. we've got three individuals, but the court has accepted all these corporate case this is year where they are probably not going to be a feminist point of view. but in issues like civil rights or sex discrimination or privacy it might make a difference. justice ginsbu

chief justice. that is not the way i understood the hypothetical. >> i understand the hypothetical that the person disagreed with the war in iraq in the end sending of american troops there. >> and knew that this elderly woman was the grandmother of a soldier and i would ask the question how they knew which is why i was making reference to what mr. snyder did. >> my person selects the grandmother because he thinks that will give maximum publicity to his views. does the first amendment bar that cause of action or not? >> if the grandmother entered the public discussion, the first amendment are. >> no, the grandmother was returning from the grave of her grandson. he didn't answer the public discussion at all. i'm anxious to determine under those circumstances the first amendment louse that -- allows that cause of action or not. >> you gave the answer before you said stalking. isn't this capable to stalk something >> and that's what i was trying to liken it to. >> do you think it satisfies the normal t

justice schrier, one of the jewish justices come -- justice breyer, one of the jewish justices, attended. host: adam liptak is taking your calls about the supreme court, whose new session begins today. cases to watch this term -- one of the big ones comes up on wednesday. guest: a marine died in iraq, and at his funeral, a fringe church called the westboro baptist church from topeka, kansas, showed up to protest, not against the soldier himself, but in aid of their idea that god is angry at the united states for its tolerance of homosexuality, and a parade around with quite hit ful -- hateful science saying that -- hateful signs saying that god hates us for tolerating homosexual it a-- ho mosexuality. the courts of said that they have a right to say these things, and that is probably consistent with the first amendment documents, but it will be very interesting to see how the supreme court handles it. host: other interesting cases coming up this term. guest: there is another cool case on a violent video games. there is a statute restricting the sale of a violent their games to minors. --

the idea of the justice system only belonging to the prosecution is what has to change. when i got to stand up and say jonathan shapiro on behalf of the united states of america -- and the defense lawyer had to say joe smith for this shmuck -- you get a sense that the system has bought into it. if you convict an innocent man, you have committed a far worse crime than any other crime because you have let the guilty party off scot-free. that is incorrect incredibly -- an incredibly important message. if anybody is waving the flag, it ought to be the public defender's office. their reluctance to do so, somehow, the sense that if they do so in will make them seem pro-government or some kind, i have never been able to fully grasp. >> let me ask a question. should we remake the image of the public defender in to the public crusader? is that what we want to do, do we need to, should we? >> i certainly think so. i bought into the public crusader thing when i was a child. ironically, here i am, not serving as a criminal defense attorney or public defender. i wanted to be a crimin

that means one in 100 people knows somebody connected to the criminal justice system. that is a tremendous opportunity for us. that means there are people in every sector of society who identify with our cause. that is when people start to understand the import of the public defender. i know very well not mind me saying this, but for the last 20 years, they have been talking about the innocent man who has been wrongly accused, and everyone thinks that is a terrible tragedy. nobody would think that that is right in america. but their message release started to sing when they shifted. we were working with them on this, at court tv, and i was the first reported to be covering the innocence project on a national basis. the message really started to sing when they talked about victims, believing for 19 years that the right guy was behind bars and then learning that the wrong guy was behind bars. twice victimized. when the defense bar can start to work with victims rights movements. it is very hard to get the defense lawyer to think in those terms, but i think that is where

many times juvenile star without justices. the ability to intimidate a juvenile is truly extraordinary. when the supreme court banned this, part of the reasoning was based on science and the development of an individual's fringe continues into early 20's, so you are talking about individuals that are extraordinary vulnerable when it comes to pressures of any authority pushing them one way or the other. that is all the time we have for this panel. we are going to go straight into the next panel. i want to highly recommend "ordinary in justice." i want to thank yoall of our panelists for coming. thank you. we will go directly into our >> once again, and the public defender in san francisco. roblin like to introduce the chief attorney of san francisco who will be moderating the next panel. >> thank you and good morning. first, i want to show you some video clips before we move into the next panel. the public defender salary is paid for by the city. it is the public defender's due to defend the public from a crime until they are p

justice stevens gave an exit interview to a few of us, including me. justice breyer will give a public interview with me in philadelphia later this month. you run into the justices here and there. but it's not a bob woodward beat. it's not an access beat. to the extent you have interactions with the justices, it is quite often not on matters of substance and you even wonder sometimes whether even that level of access is something that might influence your coverage a little bit because you might not want to write something a little bit mean about somebody who has just had coffee with you. >> charlie: so at the end of the day, covering the court, what questions are unanswered for you? >> oh, i would love to -- they have a private conference in which they make the decisions. nobody, even their clerks, is allowed in there, and just to see how they go down the row by seniority first, and the chief justice sets out the facts of the case, and then in order of seniority going to the most junior justice they chime in, that would be -- even once, even in the mos