Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With David Atkinson
Aired June 29, 2003 - 09:21 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.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: Will President Bush get to change the makeup of the Supreme Court as his father did in 1991? Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens have all been mentioned as possible ready to step down, but keeping their intentions close to the vest. Senate Democrats are already prepping for a bruising fight over the next vacancy.
Joining us from Kansas City is David Atkinson, professor of political science and law at the university of Missouri there, and author of "Leaving The Bench Supreme Court Justices at The End. "
Thank you for joining us.
DAVID ATKINSON, AUTHOR, "LEAVING THE BENCH SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AT THE END": Glad to be here.
ARENA: Tell me, do you see any of the telltale signs that one would look for regarding any of those individuals that signal that they are ready to leave, they are ready to call it a day?
ATKINSON: Well, usually people leave because of age or because of poor health or many other reasons. But these are two of the most important reasons. And when you look at each of the three senior members of this Court, you find a different situation.
The oldest member of the Court, John Paul Stevens, at 83, is probably the least likely to leave because, although he's a Republican like the president, nonetheless, he ideologically tends to be more tuned with Democratic viewers. He may wish to hold on, unless his health is a problem, until the next election.
Now the chief justice is 78, and he has had a chronic back problem for many years. And in recent years he's also been writing books. He's had three successful books in recent years. And he is a possibility certainly, because if he waits until the '04 election, why it would be too late to retire in an election year. And after that, who knows who will win the '04 election.
Sandra Day O'Connor is an interesting case because, so much has been written by her. I think no small part, because of the comment her husband made on the eve of the 2000 election when he said that she would like to retire in Arizona. There was been so much written about her in recent years. And yet she's only 73, as I say.
ARENA: Right, and very healthy. Survived breast cancer, yes. ATKINSON: She may -- well that was some years ago, a number of years ago, and she may simply be digging in her heels, and she may not retire.
ARENA: Well, how -- David, you know, I'm sorry, how much do you think the politics is really playing a role? Looking back at the history of the Court, we've seen judges try -- justices try to play politics and have it backfire. But do you expect that politics is just as much, you know, a factor here as health and age?
ATKINSON: No. I really don't. I really don't, because so many other factors enter into this. Regardless of politics, some people decide to stay on because they enjoy the work. They may consider themselves indispensable regardless of party affiliation.
And remember another thing to about the present Court, unlike earlier Courts; this is not a Court with a number of people with a great deal of political experience. These people, with the exception of Justice O'Connor, for the most part, have come from a bureaucracy, from the universities, from the lower Courts.
ARENA: Yes.
ATKINSON: We don't have former senators former governors and the like of the sort that we've had in past years.
ARENA: Well, we did have quite a history-making week. Were you surprised by any of the rulings?
ATKINSON: I wasn't really surprised. In both cases, the Texas sodomy case and the affirmative action case in Michigan, the Court relied on long established precedent. Justice O'Connor in the affirmative action case, borrowed heavily from the late Justice William Powell's thinking in the Bakke decision in 1978.
And in the Texas case, the Court relied on the abortion cases and the birth control cases, and Justice Kennedy's language in defense of the privacy interest protected by the 14 Amendment was very strong and very broad, and that leads, of course...
ARENA: Right. Where it leads is questionable. Other legal experts have suggested that the ruling in the sodomy case, it's from a far-reaching and could affect a multitude of issues such as same-sex marriages, even maybe blurring the lines for a law in adultery. Do you agree?
ATKINSON: I think it certainly would affect fornication laws and adultery laws. And beyond that, I think we have to take a wait and see attitude for this reason. If you look at the entire nine years this Court has been together, what you find is for the most part, it's been a pragmatic case-by-case Court. They tend to write narrow -- have narrow holdings. They tend to be a fact-intensive, emphasize the facts in each case.
There are exceptions to that. For the most part, however, this has been a moderate and to conservative Court. And so I think we'll have to wait and see what happens with regard to where the inherently very broad privacy language in Justice Kennedy's opinion will lead.
ARENA: All right. Professor Atkinson, we thank you for joining us this Sunday morning. You have a good day.
ATKINSON: My pleasure.
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 29, 2003 - 09:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: Will President Bush get to change the makeup of the Supreme Court as his father did in 1991? Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens have all been mentioned as possible ready to step down, but keeping their intentions close to the vest. Senate Democrats are already prepping for a bruising fight over the next vacancy.
Joining us from Kansas City is David Atkinson, professor of political science and law at the university of Missouri there, and author of "Leaving The Bench Supreme Court Justices at The End. "
Thank you for joining us.
DAVID ATKINSON, AUTHOR, "LEAVING THE BENCH SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AT THE END": Glad to be here.
ARENA: Tell me, do you see any of the telltale signs that one would look for regarding any of those individuals that signal that they are ready to leave, they are ready to call it a day?
ATKINSON: Well, usually people leave because of age or because of poor health or many other reasons. But these are two of the most important reasons. And when you look at each of the three senior members of this Court, you find a different situation.
The oldest member of the Court, John Paul Stevens, at 83, is probably the least likely to leave because, although he's a Republican like the president, nonetheless, he ideologically tends to be more tuned with Democratic viewers. He may wish to hold on, unless his health is a problem, until the next election.
Now the chief justice is 78, and he has had a chronic back problem for many years. And in recent years he's also been writing books. He's had three successful books in recent years. And he is a possibility certainly, because if he waits until the '04 election, why it would be too late to retire in an election year. And after that, who knows who will win the '04 election.
Sandra Day O'Connor is an interesting case because, so much has been written by her. I think no small part, because of the comment her husband made on the eve of the 2000 election when he said that she would like to retire in Arizona. There was been so much written about her in recent years. And yet she's only 73, as I say.
ARENA: Right, and very healthy. Survived breast cancer, yes. ATKINSON: She may -- well that was some years ago, a number of years ago, and she may simply be digging in her heels, and she may not retire.
ARENA: Well, how -- David, you know, I'm sorry, how much do you think the politics is really playing a role? Looking back at the history of the Court, we've seen judges try -- justices try to play politics and have it backfire. But do you expect that politics is just as much, you know, a factor here as health and age?
ATKINSON: No. I really don't. I really don't, because so many other factors enter into this. Regardless of politics, some people decide to stay on because they enjoy the work. They may consider themselves indispensable regardless of party affiliation.
And remember another thing to about the present Court, unlike earlier Courts; this is not a Court with a number of people with a great deal of political experience. These people, with the exception of Justice O'Connor, for the most part, have come from a bureaucracy, from the universities, from the lower Courts.
ARENA: Yes.
ATKINSON: We don't have former senators former governors and the like of the sort that we've had in past years.
ARENA: Well, we did have quite a history-making week. Were you surprised by any of the rulings?
ATKINSON: I wasn't really surprised. In both cases, the Texas sodomy case and the affirmative action case in Michigan, the Court relied on long established precedent. Justice O'Connor in the affirmative action case, borrowed heavily from the late Justice William Powell's thinking in the Bakke decision in 1978.
And in the Texas case, the Court relied on the abortion cases and the birth control cases, and Justice Kennedy's language in defense of the privacy interest protected by the 14 Amendment was very strong and very broad, and that leads, of course...
ARENA: Right. Where it leads is questionable. Other legal experts have suggested that the ruling in the sodomy case, it's from a far-reaching and could affect a multitude of issues such as same-sex marriages, even maybe blurring the lines for a law in adultery. Do you agree?
ATKINSON: I think it certainly would affect fornication laws and adultery laws. And beyond that, I think we have to take a wait and see attitude for this reason. If you look at the entire nine years this Court has been together, what you find is for the most part, it's been a pragmatic case-by-case Court. They tend to write narrow -- have narrow holdings. They tend to be a fact-intensive, emphasize the facts in each case.
There are exceptions to that. For the most part, however, this has been a moderate and to conservative Court. And so I think we'll have to wait and see what happens with regard to where the inherently very broad privacy language in Justice Kennedy's opinion will lead.
ARENA: All right. Professor Atkinson, we thank you for joining us this Sunday morning. You have a good day.
ATKINSON: My pleasure.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
