Of ilr. Youve encountered several of the Board Members when youre checking in today and making your way into this room. I want to acknowledge carol who is where . Where are you, carol . Doing a lot of heavy lifting associate with this. [applause] a couple of business items i have to address. Photographs, recordings not permitted. Weve already turned off the cell phones, okay. Some business about ilr. Were beginning our full session on monday the 15th, less than two weeks, about ten days. We have an open house scheduled for next week, the tenth, at 1 00 at the Boca Raton Community center, which is right near the city hall near palmetto. Youre the Program Brochure on your seats when you came in that shows you are full program for the eightweek session, which i think looks very exciting. And those of you who are new to ilr, theres signup sheets in there as well which you can turn in when were done. Well, to business at hand. Were privileged of course today to have with us retired Supreme CourtJustice John Paul stevens. [applause] and he hasnt even said anything yet. [laughing] the origins of this event are traceable to a member of our board and the former judge in philadelphia. She sitting right down here in the front row. [applause] not incidentally, paula plays bridge with Justice Stevens. And thats the basis whereby he comes to be here today. So thank you, thank you, paula. The conversation today will be moderated by Frank Cerabino who was a familiar figure to many of you. [applause] just quickly, a little background. Frank started out long island and graduated from the u. S. Naval academy. Served in the navy, completed his degree at Northwestern University and begin work in chicago and eventually came to south florida, join miami herald for several years and then he moved to the Palm Beach Post where his been writing and local news, for it says 26 years. He also lectures at fsu and probably does other things i dont even know about. Anyway. [laughing] while Justice Stevens will have to leave immediately afterward and well have two please, ill ask you to please give him some easy access of the aisle, frank has agreed to stick around if there is audience interest in doing that. No further delays. Frank cerabino. [applause] can you hear in the back . We might need a microphone to pass, just thinking because the sound are you okay . All right. See, i think well need a mic. [inaudible] okay. [inaudible] okay. My vast expanse with south florida audience is they can never be too loud. [laughing] will do the best we can. Listen, i do want to waste anymore time. This is really a thrill to me and should be a thrill for all of you. There it goes, okay, all right. Its my distinct honor to introduce retired Supreme CourtJustice John Paul stevens. Usually one of the Living Legends of american jurisprudence. Its true. [applause] Justice Stevens begin the 101st Supreme Court justice after being nominated by president gerald ford in 1975. And swiftly confirm the u. S. Senate in a unanimous vote. [laughing] thats not happening anytime soon. [laughing] later, while looking back at his presidency, president ford remarked that he was prepared to allow histories judgment on his entire term in office to be rested if necessary exclusively on his nomination of Justice John Paul stevens to the Supreme CourtJustice Stevens joined the court when he was 55 55 years d and he served for 35 years. The third longest tenure of any Supreme Court justice in american history. And during those years he shaped Public Discourse on a breathtaking variety of issues, from the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to copyright law, to environmental regulation. Whether the topic was flagburning, vote counting, or George Carlin said seven dirty words, Justice Stevens voice which is often all throated weather was in the majority or the minority leaves the saw with a rich history of fine line and also a compassionate human being. With a sense of duty that earned him a bronze star in world war ii as a navy code breaker, and carried for to his retirement from the nations highest court at the age of 90, Justice Stevens has truly lived the life of public service. And it goes on. He continues to write about legal issues and provocative ways including an oped piece he wrote after the parkland massacre for the near times entitled repeal the Second Amendment. [applause] i guess well have to talk about that so we got it right to. So everyone, please rise for great american, a Living Legend in our midst, Justice John Paul stevens. [applause] so how did i do . Do have a dissenting opinion on that or did a deal case . You made me think of something, maybe i should say that when i retired one of the tv commentators called me a quitter. [laughing] and i explained that i had reasons for retiring, which with the fact that when i announced my best regarded opinion in the Citizens United case in which the court upheld a rule of unlimited financial donations in election campaigns, i gave a very long dissent. I think it was 86 pages. Thats fairly long. I summarized it in less than that, but had some difficulty articulating what i was trying to say at the time, and i explained that i apparently had some kind of a problem that persuaded me that i should retire. Because if i is going to have difficulty speaking and doing my work, i should quit. That was the reason why i became a quitter. [laughing] so i thought i would explain that from time to time i still have problems articulating what im trying to say, and if i do today, please forgive me. Ill do my best. Thats great. [applause] i was going to talk about this later, i know that were on the subject, you probably know this, florida requires its state judges to acquire at the age of 70 which i guess in your case you are just getting warmed up. But what do you think about this notion that Public Servants should have a cap . A lot of people are criticized, for example, of the senators and members of congress who go in well into their 80s. Do you think that there should be some sort of retirement age for members of the legislature or the judiciary . Ive never really been in favor of that because i do think very often that the retirement requirement does cause the public to lose valuable years of service. But it serves the function of providing a reason for why somebody has to move on to Something Else. I guess we should discuss in some extent whats going on lately with the Supreme Court and tickler the last Thursdays Senate confirmation hearing which was broadcast live and watch buys Many Americans as watched the super bowl and other big events. Its one of those events that captivated the nations interest. My question to you as somebody whos made a career on the Supreme Court is, is this the best we can do as far as confirmation process where we have this very political process where everybody circuits into their camps and this this is aa that split up almost like a soap opera on television . No, no, i dont think its te best we can do. Certainly we ought to be able to do better because its an issue of credibility that should be resolved on its merits, not on the basis of political speeches back and forth. I should explain with regard to judge kavanaugh that i have a picture of you in my book, ive written a book called six amendments in which a reckoning exchanges in our fundamental law. One of them is to reverse the Citizens United case which allows unlimited political contributions to candidates. [applause] i still feel apparently some of you do, and my dissent had the right in that particular debate. But in my book i describe some of the reasons for the rule that if it should apply annually did apply for many, many years before that case. And in that discussion i describe an opinion written by judge kavanaugh on that very issue. The issue in the case was whether a canadian citizen and a citizen of israel who were living in new york temporarily could make expenditures in elections that were going on at the time. They brought a proceeding in the federal court asking for an injunction against enforcing the statute that prohibits expenditures by foreign citizens in american elections. Judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding the statute and holding that they could be barred from making, giving contributions to an american election. And i i thought that he wrote a very persuasive opinion, and as a matter of fact they put his picture in the book to illustrate my admiration for it. One of the cases that he cited in that opinion was my dissent in Citizens United, which i thought showed the fact he was a very good judge, had very good taste. [laughing] in cases to follow. I forget what the point i was going to say, but in any event, so at the time i thought he deftly have the qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court and should be confirmed if you was ever selected. But ive changed my views for reasons that have really no relationship to his intellectual ability or his record as a federal judge. Hes a fine federal judge should of been confirmed when he was nominated. But i think his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. I think as several commentators, larry tribe among film who is a constitutional law professor at harvard, have written pieces in which they suggest that he has alienated, he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities. And i think theres merit in that criticism and that the senators should really Pay Attention to it for the good of the court. Its not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a parttime job. [applause] how is it different from the Clarence Thomas case . You were there. Clarence thomas had a very bruising confirmation session, hearings in 1991. 1991. How did the other justices react to that in the fact that somebody was a polarizing figure in a body of people who are basically a collegial group of people . Well, there are a lot of differences between that. First of all, theres nothing that clearance did in the hearings that disqualified him from sitting in cases after he came on the court. Secondly, i really dont remember any conflict in the testimony between hemp and anita hill. I think you could leave everything she said and think you may have acted unwisely, and improperly to her without saying he would be disqualified from acting as an impartial judge or an honest judge. And he turned out to be i disagreed with him on most of his important rulings, but as a person, im very fond of him. Hes a very decent, likable person and you cannot help but like Clarence Thomas. Which i dont think necessarily would be true of this particular individual. [applause] will. You watched the hearings and people of watched them and filed his explanations of things in is in your book have noted that some of the things that he said under oath were some level of being evasive or not true. Is that in itself disqualifying when you swear to tell the truth before Congressional Committee and get a number of facts wrong or mischaracterized . Im not aware of any facts that he got wrong, that clarence got wrong. Not clarence. Talk about justice kavanaugh. Im sorry. It is an important fact, yes. Is it disqualifying . Not necessarily. I dont know, but i would think in this case there are enough people who have been put in the category where he would not be able to sit as a judge. Youve been a gigantic proponent of the separation of the three branches of government. To the point where you almost didnt participate in swearing in of Justice Roberts because george w. Bush administration wanted that ceremony to happen in the white house and you from billy it should happen in the Supreme Court. I wonder if you could talk about why you think its so important that the Supreme Court are members of the Supreme Court not seem cells is being aligned with any particular president. I really think it is important, and in my particular case when jerry ford into the Supreme Court and he persisted in the ceremony which i thought was really appropriate because the ceremony is the Supreme Court ceremony, its not a president ial ceremony. In my own case everything went beautifully. And for sandra day oconnor, Ronald Reagan came to the court. But in later cases they decided to hold the swearing in ceremony at the white house rather than at the court. I think that sends an incorrect message saying this is a president ial event when it really is not. The president should have nothing to do with it and no continuing influence on his nominee. So i thought that was symbolically a mistake, and i refused to attend probably four or five swearing ends of my colleagues, david souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were sworn in at the white house. In each case i did not go, but i did swear in john roberts because i strongly approved of the appointment and thought he was an excellent appointment. I still think hes an excellent chief justice, even though i disagree with him on a number of his rulings but hes a very fine person. I thought if i did not go to the white house on his swearing in, it would have created an impression that i did not approve of the appointment, which was not true with the others so i did go to the white house and swear him and at that time. I think that was right thing to do. And the obama appointments their health at the Supreme Court, correct . Yes. Obama has follow what i think is the correct practice in this regard. Justice stevens also wrote an opinion on a case that is also somehow relevant and that was the paula jones, bill clinton versus paula jones case for your opinion basically said that a sitting president is not immune from any sort of civil prosecution or any kind of civil litigation and can be held accountable while serving as president. Do you feel the same way about a president that has been embroiled in a criminal prosecution . Should the b and unity from a president participating in that sort of event . That basically sort of the fundamental rule that applies is no one is above the law. No individual is above the law. And i would assume that would apply to federal law in current times as well as so you not persuaded by the argument that he president s job is so important that to get bogged down in a criminal prosecution would in effect make him not a very effective president and that it should wait until after he is out of office . Well, the court hasnt faced that squarely, but i would think it would be most unusual that will be a justification to postpone a trial. One of the other cases you really vociferously oppose was a bush v. Gore decision. I think about another lengthy patent opinion, not 86 pages but what to do some of it and ask you this question if you wrote, it is often a minimum to administer this judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time when the will heal the wound inflicted by todays decision. One thing is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty identity of the winner of this years president ial election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. Its the nations confidence in the judge as a partial guarding of the rule of law. Thats a pretty strong statement. Thats correct. [laughing] [applause] well, how will be done over the intervening 18 18 years . Have we done much to repair that damage that was done in your mind after bush v. Gore or has gotten worse . Has the court become more political, more of an arm of the Political Party . I think its worse. I regret to say it but i really do. I think that case was a terrible example of judicial behavior, and if you could be erased and start over again, we should do so. One of the ironies about that case, of course the election might have become, come out the same way because they had a ballot in Palm Beach County i guess that caused voters mistakenly to vote for buchanan. They wanted to vote for buchanan but they did speak they want to vote for gore i think that was the theory. Right. They punched in buchanan. I think those studies showed those particular ballots were sufficient in number to account for the total election in and florida and, therefore, in the whole country. So i think we now know what mightve been the answer to the election. But i dont think we modified our lack of confidence in the decision, because its ironic in all of the opinions that were written in that case, theres only one opinion that explains why the Court Granted a stay of the recount. The florida Supreme Court ordered a recount throughout the state, and the actual holding of the court was to enjoin the recount. What opinion that explains the reasoning. The one opinion in the case was Justice Scali