Category Archives: PBS News Hour

pbs

Posted on

NewsHour: Justice Brennan Remembered – July 24, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. He died today at the age of 91. Joshua Rosenkrantz clerked for Justice Brennan. He’s now the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. Douglas Kmiec was an assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration; he now teaches law at the University of Notre Dame. And NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor; he covers the Supreme Court for the American Lawyer and Legal Times. Mr. Rosenkrantz, how will you remember Justice Brennan?

JOSHUA ROSENKRANTZ, New York University Law School: I’ll remember him first and foremost as an extraordinarily wonderful human being who just cared so much about everyone who crossed his path, and secondarily as one of the most profound movers in our history, certainly in this century, on the Supreme Court.

JIM LEHRER: Stuart, one of the most profound movers in this century on the U.S. Supreme Court?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: I think he was that. He’s widely credited, including by Justice Antonin Scalia, his philosophical opposite, as being the most influential justice of this century and one of the most in history, but that’s not what I suppose I’ll remember him for the most. I was in the–like many of my colleagues–was privileged to visit with him in his chambers. And I’ll remember him as perhaps the most lovable, likeable, charming, humble, delightful, very important person I’ve ever encountered. I remember him saying things like "When you get this damn job, my, nothing you’ve ever done prepares you for it;" things like, I’ve been excited and thrilled every day since I got here, and I’ll be excited and thrilled every day until I leave, things like, see, I didn’t really settle into the liberal mold until I’d been here a few years. I had some surprises. He was–

JIM LEHRER: In other words, he talked like a real person.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Curbs Brady Gun Law – June 27, 1997

by

MARGARET WARNER: Jim Fotis is executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a voluntary organization claiming to represent 50,000 rank and file officers. He’s also a former police officer, himself, in Lindbrook, New York. Hubert Williams is president of the Police Foundation, a private, non-profit research organization. He’s also the former police chief of Newark, New Jersey. Joining them are the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Republican Bill McCollum of Florida, who opposed enactment of the Brady law, and Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, one of the law’s original sponsors. Jim Fotis, what do you think will be the impact of this bill now? How is local law enforcement going to react–excuse me–of this ruling.

JIM FOTIS, Law Enforcement Alliance: Well, I think many of your small departments and most people don’t realize that police departments throughout the United States are very small, possibly under 20 people in most of the departments, and what’s going to happen is some of them are going to continue doing background checks. But what we have to look at is the future, as–as Mr. Farnsworth said–

MARGARET WARNER: Taylor.

JIM FOTIS: Excuse me, Taylor–that we have to look at the future. And we have to find–there are 28 states that have some kind of background check now. We have to fund the instant check for the other 22 states, so that law enforcement can get online, not use up their reserves of manpower to sit and look through hand records or sometimes have to call throughout the United States. I think it’s great that the law was struck down as it stands right now. Now we have to move forward and force the administration to fund the second part of the Brady law, the instant check.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Curbs Brady Gun Law – June 27, 1997

by

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In 1981, when a lone gunman attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, his press secretary, James Brady, was also seriously wounded. The fallout from that shooting and from several other widely publicized shooting incidents brought calls for federal legislation that would require criminal background checks on people who want to buy handguns. After much legislative controversy, a bill named after Brady was signed into law in November of 1993. PRESIDENT CLINTON: It will be step one in taking our streets back, taking our children back, reclaiming our families, and our future.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Under the Brady Bill, states could refuse to sell handguns to anyone indicted or convicted of a felony, and to those who had ever had a restraining order placed against them. The work of checking those backgrounds was given to state and local chief law enforcement officers. They were required to review the forms within five days, destroy applications of those declared eligible, and inform in writing those who were denied. But at the Graham County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack said he was too busy to do those jobs.

SHERIFF RICHARD MACK, Graham County, Arizona: We have gun problems here, gang problems here. Am I supposed to know those problems so I can check a criminal background check on someone who’s never committed a wrong in their life? Can’t do it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sheriff Mack organized a gun rally to raise money to sue the federal government. He said the requirements were an infringement on states’ rights, a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states those powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution.

SHERIFF RICHARD MACK: We cannot allow our constitutional rights to be trampled on like our federal government seems to be trampling on them.

Posted on

NewsHour: Assisted Suicide – June 26, 1997

by

MARGARET WARNER: In a unanimous decision the court upheld laws in New York and Washington State that make it a crime for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for terminally ill patients who no longer want to live. For more details on today’s ruling we’re joined by NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, correspondent for the "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times." Stuart, first brief background. What exactly did these laws say and who challenged them? STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: These were laws in Washington State and New York State. Both of them are general laws that–with deepest, darker roots that say it’s a crime to assist someone else in committing suicide. It would apply to anyone, not just a doctor–would apply to you or me helping each other. Two sets of doctors and patients–all of the patients are now dead–in New York and Washington respectively–challenged these laws on various constitutional grounds. They found their way to the Supreme Court with the two lower courts each having struck down the laws as applied to mentally competent, terminally ill people who are suffering and want a doctor to give them say a lethal medication. But the two lower courts used different constitutional rationales in striking the laws down.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. So broadly on what grounds now did the Supreme Court say these laws were constitutional, uphold these laws?

Posted on

NewsHour: Communications Decency Act – June 26, 1997

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cathy Cleaver of the Family Research Policy–Research Institute–coauthored a friend of the court brief in support of the Communications Decency Act on behalf of 26 members of Congress. And Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology organized the coalition opposing the act, including online service providers, newspaper editors, and libraries. Thanks for being with us. Jerry, are you satisfied with this ruling?

JERRY BERMAN, Center for Democracy and Technology: We have to be satisfied. There’s a fundamental victory for free speech, for the Internet, and for Internet users. It is the bill of rights for the Internet and for the medium in the 21st century. What is incredible is that all nine justices said this was a new medium, not to be treated like radio, not to be treated like television. They’re saying it’s not pervasive; it doesn’t come into the home the way television does. The user goes to and picks their site. Contrary to your setup piece that says that this is easily available, the court found and we agree that you have to go places and pick sites and there are–many times they have warnings or they have identification.

The court also, I think, by giving such a clear ruling creates some breathing room for the Internet and allows us to focus on the real solutions. They point out that these technology solutions also mentioned in your setup piece, the blocking technologies, the Surf Watch, the Cyber Patrol, are less–more effective, less restrictive, and we think that they’re out there and that we should be really moved in that direction to give users, empower users to protect and enforce their own family values consistent with the First Amendment.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Cathy Cleaver, what’s your reaction to the court’s action?

Posted on

NewsHour: Communications Decency Act – June 26, 1997

by

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In another ruling today the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to cyberspace, striking down key parts of the Communications Decency Act. We’ll discuss the case in a moment, but first some background.

The Communications Decency Act, or CDA, which signed by the President in 1996 as part of the telecommunications reform bill, made it a crime to transmit indecent material in cyberspace unless appropriate actions are taken to prevent access by anyone under age 18. Penalties range from fines as high as $250,000 to jail sentences of two years. Indecent is understood to mean patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards. The primary sponsor of the law, now retired Senator James Exon, wrote it after discovering what types of material were being transmitted on the Internet.

 

SEN. JAMES EXON, (D) Nebraska: I had a remarkable demonstration of what is readily available to any child with the basic Internet access. It is not an exaggeration to say that the worst, most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few click-click-click away from any child on the Internet.

 

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Exon was talking mainly about sexually explicit pictures and stories. They’re available, along with a wide range of other material, on the Internet, the global network connecting millions of home and office computers. People with access to the Internet can see just about anything these days, from information about the re-release of "Star Wars" to the centerfold in the current "Playboy."

 

Posted on

NewsHour: Too Much Freedom? – June 25, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Now, to NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of the American Lawyer and Legal Times. And, of course, Stuart, the court ruled today in favor of the City of Boerne, right?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: It did.

JIM LEHRER: On what grounds?

STUART TAYLOR: It held that the–this 1993 law exceeded Congress’s power by usurping the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means, in this case say what the appropriate portion of the First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion means and doesn’t mean and also by invading the reserve powers of state and local governments. The specific provision that Congress was relying on as giving it power to try and overturn this prior Supreme Court decision, in essence, was Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, the enforcement clause of this–the 14th Amendment, which incorporates a lot of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. And the court answered one of the big question marks of constitutional law because during the civil rights era the court upheld a lot of fairly far reaching laws, as Congress has broad power to enforce this, and the question has been: Does that power go so far as to let them overturn prior Supreme Court precedents, in effect, and the answer from the court today was pretty clearly no.

JIM LEHRER: And it was clear, was it not, that the majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. What did he say? Were the words strong and direct?

Posted on

NewsHour: God is in the Details – June 23, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Right. Okay. Now, let’s go to some things the court did decide. And another one of those major decisions dealt with whether public schoolteachers can offer remedial help at parochial schools. When that case was argued last April, some of you may remember, Elizabeth Farnsworth prepared this backgrounder.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The children at Sacred Heart Primary School in the South Bronx do a lot of walking. About 100 of the Catholic school’s 900 students participate in remedial education programs. They’re provided for poor students by the federal government in a program called Title I. But because of a 1985 Supreme Court decision remedial classes taught by public school teachers cannot take place inside parochial schools. So the New York City Board of Education parks three vans down the street from Sacred Heart.

The children put on their coats and are escorted from their classrooms by parent volunteers. At the school door they’re met by the van drivers, who help them cross the street and enter the vans. After an hour or sometimes less of instruction, they return to Sacred Heart in two straight lines. Teachers complain the walk to the vans takes time that could be better spent in the classroom.

RON BELLIN, Public School Teacher: The walk here is about a half a block from the school entrance, and so to walk here and back it takes up at least 10 minutes of the instruction time each, for each group. So that mounts up.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The 1985 Supreme Court decision was based on preserving the separation of church and state by keeping public school teachers out of parochial schools. But teachers say that decision has resulted in less than ideal working conditions.

OLIVE TOMLINSON, Public School Teacher: Living in a hot sardine can, praying that you don’t offend the neighbors with the exhaust pipes, trying to make the best of a very annoying situation.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Will Not Hear Whitewater Appeal – June 23, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: Today’s three major Supreme Court cases are first tonight. The biggest decision may have been not to hear a case involving First Lady Hillary Clinton. The issue was attorney-client privilege and centered on notes of conversations between presidential lawyers and Mrs. Clinton. NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of the American Lawyer and Legal Times is here for the details. The case began when, Stuart?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: It began, well, it goes back for years in terms of negotiations between Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the White House over whether you could have certain documents, but it came to a head last summer when the White House decided to draw a line in the sand and say you may not have these notes of conversations between the First Lady and White House lawyers because they are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and Starr said, no, they’re not and subpoenaed them and precipitated the court battle which ended today.

JIM LEHRER: And the appeals court ruled–which the Supreme Court agreed with today–that they were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Now, we don’t know–we’ll get to that in a minute–we don’t know what the Supreme Court–

STUART TAYLOR: The Supreme Court didn’t exactly agree with it.

JIM LEHRER: Didn’t exactly agree, but the ruling that they were judging was the appeals court, so what did the appeals court say for turning down the White House lawyers’s appeal on this?

STUART TAYLOR: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled very broadly in an opinion by a Reagan appointee named Pasco Bowman in April, and it was just unsealed in May, that the attorney-client privilege never protects any conversation any government lawyer has with the President, the First Lady, or anyone else against a federal grand jury subpoena.

Posted on

NewsHour: Supreme Court Watch – June 19, 1997

by

JIM LEHRER: We go first tonight to the Supreme Court decision on majority black districts. The court upheld a Georgia plan which provides for only one such congressional district. More now from NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor of the American Lawyer and Legal Times. Stuart, first give us the story of the case, itself.

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: It really starts in about 1990, with the decennial census that led to redistricting all over the country and in Georgia, because of a population increase, they went from ten to eleven districts, voting districts for Congress. So they had to redraw the whole map. The state legislature under very heavy pressure from the Justice Department, which was–which was enforcing a legal interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that you have to maximize the number of minority majority districts, black majority and Hispanic majority districts, pushed the legislature to have three black majority districts in Georgia, which would be roughly proportionate to the 27 percent black population.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, that’s how it looked. That’s how the districts looked.

STUART TAYLOR: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.