pbs
MARGARET WARNER: Joining me is Stuart Taylor. He’s a senior writer at "American Lawyer" and at "Legal Times," and a regular on this program. Welcome, Stuart. First, very briefly, give us the legal history of how we got to this point where you have the Justice Department and two states defending these racially drawn districts.
JIM LEHRER: Now, the differences between civil and criminal court cases. It’s relevant because of a civil court hearing that began today in Santa Monica, California, concerning O.J. Simpson. The former football star was acquitted last month in criminal court on charges he murdered his ex-wife and her friend. Stuart Taylor is here to explain the differences in the two trials. He’s a senior writer at "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times" and a regular on this program. Stuart, welcome.
STUART TAYLOR: Nice to be here.
JIM LEHRER: Set the situation for us in this O.J. matter, the civil court case. What, who brought it? What do they want?
MR. TAYLOR: The families of the two murder victims here of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman are suing and in essence, they’re suing for money, which is the only thing they can sue for, but Mr. Goldman, at least, Frederick Goldman, the father of that victim, has made it clear that his real objective is to render O.J. Simpson penniless, if he can, not so much to make himself rich.
JIM LEHRER: Why does the double jeopardy thing not apply in this matter? The man’s already been acquitted of murder. Why can this be allowed?
MR. TAYLOR: Double jeopardy only applies to criminal prosecutions. The historic purpose of it was to prevent the government from coming back at you again and again after you get acquitted. In a civil case, there’s a different standard of proof. For example, there are a lot of differences, and the purpose is to enable the victims of a civil wrong to get compensation.
JIM LEHRER: So they are essentially suggesting or charging in a civil way that O.J. Simpson did, in fact, murder these two folks. Now what do they–how do they have to prove it? You say there’s a different burden of proof or a different element of proof. What’s the difference?
GALE NORTON, Colorado Attorney General: Our position has been that Amendment Two preserves the status quo, that it allows the people of Colorado as a whole to make the decision about the issue of sexual orientation, and the Justices, through their questioning, saw that issue as being one of the primary concerns.
SUZANNE GOLDBERG, Lambda Legal Defense: The Constitution forbids the singling out of one group of people for different political rules, and today, through our briefs and argument, we made that clear. Amendment Two is a patent of the Constitution for all of the reasons we’ve discussed, but it’s also absurd. And I think that many of the questions today pointed that out.
MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, legal analysis of today’s case. Stuart Taylor, senior writer at "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times," is with Charlayne Hunter-Gault.
MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Stuart, thank you for joining us. What is at issue in this case?
STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: Basically, the state’s voters by initiative adopted what almost comes down to a right of the people to discriminate against homosexuals. It’s more complicated than that. What had happened is that some of the cities in Colorado, Boulder, Denver, and Aspen, had passed gay rights laws. You can’t be fired for being a homosexual. You can’t be denied housing for being a homosexual. The voters of the state basically wiped out those laws with this referendum and said, localities cannot adopt gay rights laws, cannot adopt laws banning discrimination against gays, and nor can the state legislature. So if homosexual people want to get relief from discrimination in Colorado, they have to pass a constitutional amendment getting rid of this one, which apparently doesn’t seem politically likely.
MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That’s Amendment Two, and then something like 57 percent of the voters of Colorado voted for it.
ROBERT MACNEIL: To assess Supreme Court Justice Blackmun’s legacy, we’re joined by four court watchers. Kathleen Sullivan is a professor of law at Stanford University. Charles Fried was solicitor general during the Reagan administration and now teaches at Harvard. Stuart Taylor covers the Supreme Court for American Lawyer Magazine and is a frequent court analyst for The NewsHour, and Harold Koh teaches law at Yale University. He also served as a law clerk for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, besides the most famous Roe vs. Wade decision, what other decisions mark Justice Blackmun’s time on the court?
