Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Supreme Court Could Issue Landmark Rulings

Aired June 23, 2003 - 10:01   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour at the U.S. Supreme Court, where landmark rulings could be handed down at any moment. One case questions the legality of affirmative action; the other challenges state sodomy laws.
Let's get more on the legal perspective of all of that, and we turn now to CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

How are you -- Jeffrey.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

WHITFIELD: Let's talk first about affirmative action, and there really are two cases at issue, right?

TOOBIN: There are. They're both from the University of Michigan. One involves the college, one involves the law school. But the principal at stake in both is whether the Constitution allows the university to consider the value of diversity, to consider race in admissions, or whether the Constitution is supposedly color blind and race may not be considered. It's a very simple, straightforward question, a very high-stakes decision.

WHITFIELD: And given there are two different cases, both involving the University of Michigan, might this bring an already divisive issue even more divided if indeed the court decides to handle them a little differently or rule on them differently?

TOOBIN: That is true. What's different about the two -- and it could be significant -- is that the admissions policy at the college gives a specific point value. It's a 150-point system for admissions there, and you can get as many as 20 extra points by being a racial minority. In the law school, which is the other case, there is no strict point system. It's a more flexible standard, and it's one where the university officials have said they do consider race, and race is an advantage, but there is no strict point system.

So, you could see a scenario, especially with this court which likes to move in smaller steps, saying, well, it's OK to consider race in a general way, but you can't do it in a point system, the way the college does.

WHITFIELD: Now, why is it that not just private and public educational institutions are keeping a close watch on the potential decisions that come out of the University of Michigan case, but also corporations are keeping a close eye? Why? TOOBIN: It's really just a huge, huge case, because even businesses that have federal contracts, which are most of the big businesses in the country, will be bound by the principles in this decision. If, for example, the court says the Constitution must be color blind, you cannot consider race in any way, companies like General Motors, Microsoft, which filed briefs in favor of the university, will have to change some of their policies.

So, there's really tremendous stakes in this case. You know, sometimes we hype things, Fredricka. You know, we make things sound like big deals and maybe they aren't. This really is a big deal, this case.

WHITFIELD: And there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the justices, too, because this affirmative action issue has very much become a very politicized one as well, right?

TOOBIN: Well, especially now, because here we're coming up on the end of the term sometime this week, a lot of rumors about a possible retirement, so there could be a new Supreme Court justice appointed by President Bush. Certainly that justice's stand on affirmative action will be something that the Senate will be considering when it goes to confirmation hearings. How the new justice reacts, if there is a new justice, to the decision that may be coming out as we speak will be a big part of the hearings. So, it's yet another reason why this decision is important.

WHITFIELD: All right, let's shift gears now, the other big case that they are going to be ruling on, the Texas sodomy case. Why is it that there are so many who feel like this is going to be a step back, particularly if it comes to consensual sex of homosexuals all across the board?

TOOBIN: Well, what's so interesting about this case is that in 1986, the Supreme Court decided almost the exact same issue. Almost the same issue came before them, and they said, yes, it's OK, that Georgia can regulate private, consensual sex between adults in a home. They said, it's OK for Georgia to make it illegal.

Well, when I was at the oral argument in this case in the winter, it was very clear to me that at least some justices thought the court was wrong in 1986, and the court may revisit that and say simply, this is none of the government's business; that if people want to -- adults want to engage in this kind of behavior on their own time, in private, without any commerce involved, without any children involved, that's OK. So, it could be a real -- a landmark in terms of gay rights and the Supreme Court.

WHITFIELD: And...

TOOBIN: Interesting, in terms of practical significance, this doesn't have the high stakes that the affirmative action case does. Only 13 states have sodomy laws like this on the books, and even in those states they are not enforced all that often.

WHITFIELD: And if it were to turn out that it would be illegal across the board involving all states, then how in the world would this be enforced?

TOOBIN: Well, all the Supreme Court would say, if they approve the Texas law that's at issue, they can say that Texas is within its right in making consensual sodomy between adults legal. It doesn't mean every state has to do that. All that it would say is that Texas is allowed to do it. It wouldn't suddenly make it illegal in the 37 states where it's already legal.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.






Aired June 23, 2003 - 10:01   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour at the U.S. Supreme Court, where landmark rulings could be handed down at any moment. One case questions the legality of affirmative action; the other challenges state sodomy laws.
Let's get more on the legal perspective of all of that, and we turn now to CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

How are you -- Jeffrey.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

WHITFIELD: Let's talk first about affirmative action, and there really are two cases at issue, right?

TOOBIN: There are. They're both from the University of Michigan. One involves the college, one involves the law school. But the principal at stake in both is whether the Constitution allows the university to consider the value of diversity, to consider race in admissions, or whether the Constitution is supposedly color blind and race may not be considered. It's a very simple, straightforward question, a very high-stakes decision.

WHITFIELD: And given there are two different cases, both involving the University of Michigan, might this bring an already divisive issue even more divided if indeed the court decides to handle them a little differently or rule on them differently?

TOOBIN: That is true. What's different about the two -- and it could be significant -- is that the admissions policy at the college gives a specific point value. It's a 150-point system for admissions there, and you can get as many as 20 extra points by being a racial minority. In the law school, which is the other case, there is no strict point system. It's a more flexible standard, and it's one where the university officials have said they do consider race, and race is an advantage, but there is no strict point system.

So, you could see a scenario, especially with this court which likes to move in smaller steps, saying, well, it's OK to consider race in a general way, but you can't do it in a point system, the way the college does.

WHITFIELD: Now, why is it that not just private and public educational institutions are keeping a close watch on the potential decisions that come out of the University of Michigan case, but also corporations are keeping a close eye? Why? TOOBIN: It's really just a huge, huge case, because even businesses that have federal contracts, which are most of the big businesses in the country, will be bound by the principles in this decision. If, for example, the court says the Constitution must be color blind, you cannot consider race in any way, companies like General Motors, Microsoft, which filed briefs in favor of the university, will have to change some of their policies.

So, there's really tremendous stakes in this case. You know, sometimes we hype things, Fredricka. You know, we make things sound like big deals and maybe they aren't. This really is a big deal, this case.

WHITFIELD: And there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the justices, too, because this affirmative action issue has very much become a very politicized one as well, right?

TOOBIN: Well, especially now, because here we're coming up on the end of the term sometime this week, a lot of rumors about a possible retirement, so there could be a new Supreme Court justice appointed by President Bush. Certainly that justice's stand on affirmative action will be something that the Senate will be considering when it goes to confirmation hearings. How the new justice reacts, if there is a new justice, to the decision that may be coming out as we speak will be a big part of the hearings. So, it's yet another reason why this decision is important.

WHITFIELD: All right, let's shift gears now, the other big case that they are going to be ruling on, the Texas sodomy case. Why is it that there are so many who feel like this is going to be a step back, particularly if it comes to consensual sex of homosexuals all across the board?

TOOBIN: Well, what's so interesting about this case is that in 1986, the Supreme Court decided almost the exact same issue. Almost the same issue came before them, and they said, yes, it's OK, that Georgia can regulate private, consensual sex between adults in a home. They said, it's OK for Georgia to make it illegal.

Well, when I was at the oral argument in this case in the winter, it was very clear to me that at least some justices thought the court was wrong in 1986, and the court may revisit that and say simply, this is none of the government's business; that if people want to -- adults want to engage in this kind of behavior on their own time, in private, without any commerce involved, without any children involved, that's OK. So, it could be a real -- a landmark in terms of gay rights and the Supreme Court.

WHITFIELD: And...

TOOBIN: Interesting, in terms of practical significance, this doesn't have the high stakes that the affirmative action case does. Only 13 states have sodomy laws like this on the books, and even in those states they are not enforced all that often.

WHITFIELD: And if it were to turn out that it would be illegal across the board involving all states, then how in the world would this be enforced?

TOOBIN: Well, all the Supreme Court would say, if they approve the Texas law that's at issue, they can say that Texas is within its right in making consensual sodomy between adults legal. It doesn't mean every state has to do that. All that it would say is that Texas is allowed to do it. It wouldn't suddenly make it illegal in the 37 states where it's already legal.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.