Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Opens Up

By: CBSNews

Watch the Segment »

Web Extras

Harvey Weinstein on "CBS This Morning." (CBS)

In Citizens United, the majority gave corporations the right to spend as much as they want on political campaigns; the majority said that limiting money in politics is the same as limiting free speech.

"Where does the court make a mistake, in your view?" Pelley asked.

"Well which mistake do I want to emphasize?" Stevens asked.

"You decide," Pelley said.

"Well, you know, basically, an election is a debate. And most debates, you have rules. And I think Congress is the one that ought to make those rules. And if the debate is distorted by having one side have so much greater resources than the other, that, sometimes may distort the ability to decide the debate on the merits. You want to be sure that it's a fair fight," Stevens explained.

In Citizens United, Stevens' opinion was a warning to the court: the decision, he wrote, "Will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

In our time with Stevens we expected to cover momentous events, but, in his chambers, we didn't imagine we would get a ruling on one of the greatest controversies in baseball.

We noticed a box score from Game 3 of the 1932 World Series. Legend has it that the Yankees' Babe Ruth pointed to a spot in the Cubs' Wrigley Field and nailed a homerun right there - it's the famous "called shot," but whether it actually happened is ferociously debated.

Remember the fateful year when Stevens was 12? Well, he was here when Ruth came to bat. And we figured it was a question of suitable national importance on which to render this justice's final ruling.

"He took the bat in his right hand and pointed it right at the center field stands and then, of course, the next pitch he hit a homerun in center field and there's no doubt about the fact that he did point before he hit the ball," Stevens recalled.

"So the 'called shot' actually happened?" Pelley asked.

"Oh, there's no doubt about it," Stevens said. "That's my ruling."

"Case closed!" Pelley said.

Stevens said, "That's the one ruling I will not be reversed on!"

Now Available: America's number one news program now has a companion iPad app! The "60 Minutes" iPad app features the same hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news that are the hallmark of the iconic broadcast show, plus original video content from "60 Minutes Overtime." Check it out in the iTunes app store.

Produced by Jenny Dubin

4 Comments +

Add a Comment


by mcjtrident December 2, 2010 2:29 PM EST: I went into the Scott Pelley interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens with low expectations and I was not disappointed.

First, the issue of the 2000 Presidential election. Pelley asked Stevens whether the recount of the Bush victory over Al Gore should've continued. Predictably, Stevens said it should've continued. What was missing from the interview were two critical points. Pelley never asked the follow-up question; "Okay, if it should've continued, which standard should've been used?" Remember, the main issue was over how to count votes and how the various standards used led to much of the confusion. Democrats love election recounts to go as long as possible until they have enough votes to win. Anybody wish to challege my contention using the last decade of election history?

The larger issue that was also ignored in the CBS story is that Bush won virtually all the recounts done by the media. Many recounts using various standards were done by the media after the 2000 election and Bush's margin of victory actually increased. You've probably not heard much about this because the activist old media still want to make Bush 2000 all about the SCOTUS choosing the POTUS. No story about the 2000 Presidential election should ignore what happened with the media recounts, but CBS did.

In fact, instead of asking him tough questions about the 2000 Presidential election, all Pelley did was pander to Stevens by agreeing that, "there were many people in this country that felt the Supreme Court stole that election for President Bush." I always love when interviewers use the "many people feel" line to reflect their own thoughts.

Some people just can't let Florida 2000 go, can they?

Another gem from Stevens that went unchallenged, "Part of our job is to write opinions from time to time that are not popular and you know at the time they are not going to be popular." What? That is part of the job of a US Supreme Court Justice? Scott, could you not challenge him on that point at least? 35 years on the Bench and Stevens doesn't know that it's his job to uphold the Constitution, and not just try to be unpopular when it suits his fancy? What if upholding the Constitution is popular, do you just decide against the Constitution because it was time to do something unpopular?

Oh, it gets better.

CBS displayed its anger over the SCOTUS decision this year to "legislate from the bench" and "overturn 100 years of law," as they put it, in the case involving corporations right to free speech under the First Amendment. Instead of challenging Stevens on a corporations right to free speech, he was allowed to ramble on about how important it is to make sure that corporations should not be allowed the right (the same as unions) because the Supreme Court needs to make sure it's a "fair fight" between both sides in an election. So, a fair fight is more important than the First Amendment. Pelley held his pen in his right hand, took it to his chin and appeared to be in awe of the brilliance of somebody who seems so willing to ignore the Constitution because he wants to somehow make sure elections fit his definition of "fair."

Hey, at least the Constitution was actually mentioned once during this interview. The only time it was mentioned was to hold the First Amendment in derision.

There is also this gem from the "extra" segments found only on the CBS web site. Stevens talks about the death penalty, which he is solidly against in any case. He justifies it this way, "That's basically the rule that's followed in most civilized countries," Stevens says. Pelley would've been wise to counter with something like, "Your Honor, you are not called upon to judge according to the laws of other countries, but rather to uphold the Constitution, why do you look to other nation's laws to judge what we do here in America?" or something to that effect. It must not have crossed Pelley's mind, or perhaps he sees nothing wrong with Justices in this country basing their decisions on what other countries do. Clearly, it is not the job of any judge in America to look to foreign law when making decisions, but what do I know, I've never worked for 60 Minutes.

It would've been nice for Pelley to ask Stevens about the Kelo vs New London decision. This was the one in 2005 where Stevens basically said it was okay for government to allow a corporation to take private property from an individual using eminent domain, under the guise of increasing tax revenue. I believe the Constitution does say a few things about the right of property ownership by individuals. I guess Scott Pelley didn't have time to get to that little 'ol property rights issue. Stevens wrote the decision allowing one of the most egregious violations of Constitutional principles in our nation's history to take place - sorry, we're out of time - but ?; Reply to this comment


by johndevinejr November 29, 2010 3:24 PM EST: Still nothing compares to Citizens United. Now in the United States we have a new form of Royalty...Corporations.

Exactly what republicans have always wanted.; Reply to this comment

by thanksgreed November 28, 2010 9:16 PM EST

He's right, it's a travesty that the Supreme Court has sold out to political ideology. It was designed to be above that.

Reply to this comment


by PatriotMike3 November 28, 2010 9:58 PM EST: Yes, and he's the primary actor in the travesty. His opinions are all result-oriented, just like the abominations authored by Rehnquist.