Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Supreme Court Cases

Aired June 25, 2003 - 08:33   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Two more major decisions could be handed down tomorrow by the U.S. Supreme Court. One case deals with sodomy and the prosecution of two men under a law in Texas which makes same-sex intercourse a crime. The second is with corporal free speech, in charges that Nike lied about working conditions in its factories from overseas.
More on this now, Russell Robinson, a professor from Fordham Law School, and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Good morning, professor.

First of all, sodomy -- what's critical right now as look at this right now before this decision comes down?

RUSSELL ROBINSON, FORDHAM LAW SCHOOL: I think many people are expecting it to rule in favor of gay rights. The issue really is the breath of the opinion, and whether it will affect issues like, don't ask, don't tell ultimately, gay marriage, gay adoption, and whether it's very narrow.

HEMMER: How could this affect gay marriage, adoption, don't ask, don't tell?

ROBINSON: If it's a broad endorsement for equality for gays and lesbians, that could affect all laws that limit opportunities for gays and lesbians, including marriage laws. However, I think the court would be hesitant to go there, and would most likely have a very narrow opinion, which is its practice, and wouldn't want to bite off more than it could chew

HEMMER: Why would it stay narrow?

ROBINSON: Well, the court, in general, does not like to address issues that aren't directly before it, and it also tries to respect the legislative process, and might want to let that process work itself out. And we have seen already regarding some changes in some states to liberalize opportunities for gay couples. So the court might not want to take that issue on itself, just let the process work itself out.

HEMMER: This is the law in Texas, 12 other states have it. How are they impacted, depending on how the court rules?

ROBINSON: They will likely be impacted. If the court focuses on the fact that this statute discriminates against homosexuals, then the three other states that have similar laws will be affected. If it broadly rules that there is this right to sexual privacy, then even the laws that ban heterosexual sodomy, as well as homosexual sodomy, will be affected...

HEMMER: Are we going to see, professor, another 5-4 decision here?

ROBINSON: It's pretty likely. This is a hotly contested issue. It could be 6-3, however.

HEMMER: Well, we will see, if not today, tomorrow.

Nike -- what gives here?

ROBINSON: Well, the important issue here is the clash between protecting consumers and corporate free speech. And Nike says when it makes statements on public issues, it should receive full constitutional protection, not a lower standard that applies to commercial speech.

HEMMER: So in this case, then, Nike, essentially is saying, we are speaking on behalf of the company, and we have the right to do that?

ROBINSON: Right, but the problem is that they also are affecting customers in their buying decisions, and so the response (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is that there's a need to protect consumers from deceptive statements by corporations.

HEMMER: I got it.

We'll coming to the end of this term. Neither of these cases really have the impact affirmative action had on Monday this week, you would agree on that right?

ROBINSON: Affirmative action would probably the biggest case this term. However, if you look at it overall, this is turning out to be a landmark term, despite the conservative nature of the Rehnquist court. For equality, look at affirmative action, hate speech, family and medical leave, employment discrimination and now gay rights.

HEMMER: I take it that surprises you a little bit based on your answer?

ROBINSON: It does. Well, the court is known to be very conservative. But I think you see that one or two justices can make a difference. Here, Justice O'Connor has been a swing vote, has made a critical difference. If she leaves the court and is replaced, we could see a shift in the other direction.

HEMMER: Russell Robinson, Fordham Law School, thanks for coming in, professor. We will see when it all comes down. Appreciate it.

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 25, 2003 - 08:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Two more major decisions could be handed down tomorrow by the U.S. Supreme Court. One case deals with sodomy and the prosecution of two men under a law in Texas which makes same-sex intercourse a crime. The second is with corporal free speech, in charges that Nike lied about working conditions in its factories from overseas.
More on this now, Russell Robinson, a professor from Fordham Law School, and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Good morning, professor.

First of all, sodomy -- what's critical right now as look at this right now before this decision comes down?

RUSSELL ROBINSON, FORDHAM LAW SCHOOL: I think many people are expecting it to rule in favor of gay rights. The issue really is the breath of the opinion, and whether it will affect issues like, don't ask, don't tell ultimately, gay marriage, gay adoption, and whether it's very narrow.

HEMMER: How could this affect gay marriage, adoption, don't ask, don't tell?

ROBINSON: If it's a broad endorsement for equality for gays and lesbians, that could affect all laws that limit opportunities for gays and lesbians, including marriage laws. However, I think the court would be hesitant to go there, and would most likely have a very narrow opinion, which is its practice, and wouldn't want to bite off more than it could chew

HEMMER: Why would it stay narrow?

ROBINSON: Well, the court, in general, does not like to address issues that aren't directly before it, and it also tries to respect the legislative process, and might want to let that process work itself out. And we have seen already regarding some changes in some states to liberalize opportunities for gay couples. So the court might not want to take that issue on itself, just let the process work itself out.

HEMMER: This is the law in Texas, 12 other states have it. How are they impacted, depending on how the court rules?

ROBINSON: They will likely be impacted. If the court focuses on the fact that this statute discriminates against homosexuals, then the three other states that have similar laws will be affected. If it broadly rules that there is this right to sexual privacy, then even the laws that ban heterosexual sodomy, as well as homosexual sodomy, will be affected...

HEMMER: Are we going to see, professor, another 5-4 decision here?

ROBINSON: It's pretty likely. This is a hotly contested issue. It could be 6-3, however.

HEMMER: Well, we will see, if not today, tomorrow.

Nike -- what gives here?

ROBINSON: Well, the important issue here is the clash between protecting consumers and corporate free speech. And Nike says when it makes statements on public issues, it should receive full constitutional protection, not a lower standard that applies to commercial speech.

HEMMER: So in this case, then, Nike, essentially is saying, we are speaking on behalf of the company, and we have the right to do that?

ROBINSON: Right, but the problem is that they also are affecting customers in their buying decisions, and so the response (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is that there's a need to protect consumers from deceptive statements by corporations.

HEMMER: I got it.

We'll coming to the end of this term. Neither of these cases really have the impact affirmative action had on Monday this week, you would agree on that right?

ROBINSON: Affirmative action would probably the biggest case this term. However, if you look at it overall, this is turning out to be a landmark term, despite the conservative nature of the Rehnquist court. For equality, look at affirmative action, hate speech, family and medical leave, employment discrimination and now gay rights.

HEMMER: I take it that surprises you a little bit based on your answer?

ROBINSON: It does. Well, the court is known to be very conservative. But I think you see that one or two justices can make a difference. Here, Justice O'Connor has been a swing vote, has made a critical difference. If she leaves the court and is replaced, we could see a shift in the other direction.

HEMMER: Russell Robinson, Fordham Law School, thanks for coming in, professor. We will see when it all comes down. Appreciate it.

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