Fmr. Justice John Paul Stevens, Author, "Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir"

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 окт 2011
  • Our guest this week is retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. He discusses his new book, "Five Chiefs," a memoir which details the workings of the Supreme Court from Stevens' personal experiences with the five most recent chief justices.

Комментарии • 17

  • @emmarose4234
    @emmarose4234 4 года назад +15

    My favorite Supreme Court Justice of all time.

  • @jackdowd6238
    @jackdowd6238 4 года назад +4

    As a kid he saw Babe Ruth's "called shot" at Wrigley field....CBS posted the clip of his recollection...goodstuff

  • @RikersStupidBeard
    @RikersStupidBeard 8 лет назад +4

    I'm always amazed at how Q&A will have these amazing subjects and squander the time on inane questions.

    • @uncletony6210
      @uncletony6210 6 лет назад +1

      who would you say is a better interviewer than Brian?

  • @Zachw2007
    @Zachw2007 12 лет назад +3

    Great interview! Great book!

  • @writersblock26
    @writersblock26 12 лет назад +4

    Thank you for posting this, CSPAN.

  • @johncohen567
    @johncohen567 9 лет назад +1

    @Zakariah1971 I am in awe of your criticism of Justice Stevens. In one of your comments you write that "the fool never bothered to assess the validity of the 11th Amendment under the Constitution. The 11th Amendment is void (Vide Hollingsworth et al v. Virginia 1798)." The job of a justice is not to "assess" the validity of a constitutional amendment. An amendment is, by definition, the text of the Constitution. To the extent any previous provision of the Constitution, statute, or case law conflicts with a Constitutional amendment, the previous precedent is void.

  • @tyroneasterino5527
    @tyroneasterino5527 8 лет назад +2

    Wow...

  • @Zakariah1971
    @Zakariah1971 12 лет назад

    Not doe but I am petitioner in Lafreniere v UC Regents 11-5790 at the Supreme Court...

  • @Zakariah1971
    @Zakariah1971 12 лет назад +1

    What irks me is the Court's failure to follow stare decisis in it's 11th Amendment jurisprudence set in Hopkins v Clemson College 221 US 636 (1911)(the 11th Amendment is void)

  • @tiffanysowellobama3863
    @tiffanysowellobama3863 4 года назад +2

    Tragedy remember who he is .!respect college and friend.,if you ask god too return in life would you..?ask God.faith

  • @Zakariah1971
    @Zakariah1971 12 лет назад

    How many lives did this one man ruin with assanine rulings like Regents v Doe!!

  • @someonenew439
    @someonenew439 2 года назад

    Good mind but he is an absolute fool for thinking the second amendment does not mean and individuals right to bear arms. For that reason as for others he has no sense of Constitutional law or interpretation. Because the 2nd amendment has always meant the right to bear arms. Only a person who has never studied history would say it doesn’t. For that reason I find him as a lesser judge.

  • @nurlatifahmohdnor8939
    @nurlatifahmohdnor8939 9 месяцев назад

    TERM OF
    NAME OFFICE APPOINTED BY
    John Jay (1745-1829) 1789-95 George Washington
    John Rutledge (1739-1800) 1795 George Washington
    John Marshall (1755-1835) 1801-35 John Adams

    • @nurlatifahmohdnor8939
      @nurlatifahmohdnor8939 9 месяцев назад

      Page 477-1
      In 1857 Chief Justice Roger Taney's court decided, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, that Congress could not forbid extension of slavery to the territories.