affair, kevin cassas zamora of the brookings institution and former vice president of costa rica, greg grandin at new york university and michael shifter, incoming president of the interamerican dialogue. justice stevens and latin america, coming up. >> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company. supporting this program since 2002. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is chaálie rose. >> justice john paul stevens today announced his retirement from the supreme court. he had been on the court 34 years. he was known as the leader of the liberal wing. he is the fourth longest serving justice in u.s. history. he was appointed by republican president gerald ford but he was hardly beholden to conservatives. "the new york times" wrote that he may be the last justice from a time when the independence rather than perceived ideology were perceived a identification for seat on the court. he dissented in the famous case of bush versus gore saying although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear, it is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. today speaking from the rose garden, president obama praised justice stevens contribution to the court. >> he has stood as an impartial guardian of the law. he has worn the judicial robe with honor and humility. he has plyed the constitution and the laws of the land with fiddleity and restraint. he will soon turn 90 this month but he leaves his position at the top of his game. his leadership will be soarly missed. >> the president also said that the search for successor had begun. >> while we cannot replace justice stevens' experience or wisdom, i will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities. an independent mind, a record of excellence, and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the american people. it will also be someone who like justice stevens knows that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ode citizens. >> joining me now is professor greene teaching constitutional law at columbia law school and previously clerked for justice stevens. i'm pleased to have him ear on-- here on this program. tell me about justice stevens. >> justice stevens is an amazing person. he is from a different era. and i think you get that sense the second you meat him. he has a certain gentility about him, a certain just basic decency that i think tends to be lost these days. and just in terms of his jurisprudence i think your intro was quite right that he is an independent thinker. i think you know he talks of as the liberal lion on the court, the liberal icon on the court but he really does, i think, approach each case on a case-by-case basis. he really does have an independent streak. >> he had an influence beyond one vote. >> i think so. i think that's absolutely. he has been on the court for 34 years. and i think even some of the conservatives on the court are able to respect that. there is a very strong seniority on the court and he is the most senior justice by a country mile. and just the kind of institutional knowledge he has is respected by judges on both sides of the court. and of course all the current kind of liberal block of the court where we are talking about justice ginsburg, justice brier, soto myers to are the last three appointees so they are the most junior members. they really look up to him i think as someone who is a real leader. >> how will he be missed mostly? >> you know, i think it is actually going to be inside baseball. i think one of the real serious ways in which he will be missed is a-- crossing, this is the process where the court decides which cases it is going to accept and justice stevens, he and justice alito are the only two justices who are not part of a pool where all the clerks for the other justices are in the pool decide or they write memos for each of the cases that where people are applying to get their cases heard at the court. and justice stevens and justice alito are the only justices who read, chambers read each of the pitches himself. one of the things that does is it gives you an independent mind about each of the petitions. i actually think you know even apart from his jurisprudence which i think is something that is going to be missed in the court. i think a lot of the behind the scenes going on at the court in terms of how cases get accepted is one of the ways in which he actually, his absence will be felt quite strongly. >> in terms of his jurisprudence where were his passions for what issues? >> certainly national security issues, terrorism cases. he is a world war ii veteran. he was a law clerk to wiley rut lige who was a major dissenter in some of the cases from world war ii involving detention of what we now call enemy combatants. and i think that experience had a profound effect on him. he has a basic sense of justice. he thinks that his job is to have a basic sense of justice. and those cases present issues of justice in the starkest possible terms. these are not sympathetic characters we're talking about. but he's able to see through that. and i think he really does have a passion for those cases in part because of the way his experiences have informed his jurisprudence. >> what are the three or four cases that he wrote that were most renowned in which he wrote the majority opinion. >> over the long career, 34 years, i think you have to say the hamdan decision which is recent decision involving the ability of the president to establish military commissions without congressional approval. and the opinion basically says you need to get congress's backing here it is a separate of powers type opinion. the opinion that gets decided the most, the most sided opinion written by justice stevens by far is his opinion in chevron which is an administrative law case which tells what the basic standard of review is when an agency and administrative agency is interpreting a federal statute so that is a major opinion he's written. a third case, you know, he's actually known for writing a lot of dissenting. >> rose: that would have been -- >> and so he wrote a powerful dissent justice term in citizens united which is the case involving corporate campaign contributions, where the court says first the corporations have a first amendment right to engage in election expenditures. he wrote a long dissent in that case. he wrote a dissent a couple of years ago in a case called dc versus heller, a second amendment case involving gun rights, first time the second amendment gets interpreted by the court in 60 years. and he writes a sort of point by point rebuttal of justice scalia, his long time antagonist on 9 court saying you know the original understanding of the second amendment was actually mill itcha related, not related to an individual right to bear arms. and so those are two of certainly the most recent opinions he will be remembered for. >> rose: where was he pronounce approximated in terms of an attitude about government separation of powers, individual liberty. >> well, i think one case that really stands out is actually an opinion that he didn't write himself. lawrence versus texas which involved the constitutionality of a sodomy statute in texas. court overrules a precedent from 17 years oold. -- ago, written by justice kennedy. one of the ways in which you sort of see justice stevens' influence and some of the other justices, justice kennedy writes the opinion but he says going back to bowers, justice stevens wrote a dissenting. he said justice stevens is write and this should have been the governing law for the last 17 years. that is an instance where justice kennedy is drawing on the wisdom of just citie cities-- justice stevens from before justice kennedy is on the court. and indeed the same passage quoted in that opinion is drawn basically from an opinion justice stevens wrote in 1975. >> rose: how did he feel about the perception of him as a liberal judge? >> you know, i think he has already thought of himself as basically a conservative person. and i think-- . >> rose: he described himself that way. >> i think that's right. i think, i don't know that i would say that that is right as a philosophical matter in terms of jurisprudence of the court it is right as a matter of a conservative judge is one that takes each case one at a time. doesn't approach cases ide ideaologicalically. and i think that is what he means by conservatives. >> rose: so who is the most likely judge to retire next? >> i think most people would say justice ginsburg. she has had a history, she has been having bouts with cancer. as far as i know she is very vigorous on the court. so i don't think that she is-- my sense is that she is not particularly eager to leave the court but if i had to put money on it that is what i would pick. >> i ask the question because constitution law thinks about these things. is what judge, what changed either from retirement or death could shift the balance in the courts so that decisions would have a different end. >> well, certainly justice kennedy would be the first person you think of. he is the-- . >> rose: as with justice o'connor. >> he replaced justice o'connor as the swing justice on the court. the term i clerked on the court which was 2006 to 2007 year on the court, justice kennedy was never in dissent in a 5-4 decision. so in a close case he's always in the majority or most of the time in the majority. so all these close cases we always hear about, all the close cases that come out, come up during the confirmation hearings, these are the cases where justice kennedy is really deciding which direction the court goes in. so he is really the swing justice on the court. although i do think justice stevens as the senior justice of the so-called liberal block, he is the one who assigned opinions to the other justices when he's in the majority. and so the assignment of opinions actually can have an impact on the way an opinion is written. and who you actually get to sign on. you know if you assign on an opinion to justice kennedy and he is kind of on the fence will write the opinion in a way that makes sure he stays in the majority. so that is a little bit of the strategy behind opinion assignments. >> has most of the mystique gone away now that we have had books written by people who have lots of evidence and testimony from clerks and the like? >> you know, i think some of it has gone away. although i think there is a way in which we tend to idealize courts from the past as if they weren't the same kinds of controversy. the supreme court has been the subject of political controversy for most of its history. and so that's no different. and it actually remains the case that if you compare it to the presidency and congress, you know, more people trust the supreme court. more people believe in the supreme court, have feels of goodwill towards the supreme court. and other political institutions. so political scientists after bush v gore which is considered the death nell to supreme court independence and integrity, you know, it took a year or two for opinions to go back to where they were about the court. so i think relative to other political institutions, the court is actually doing pretty well. >> rose: thank you. pleasure to have you on the program, swramal greene is a professor at columbia university where he teaches constitutional law. a graduate of yale law school. we turn now to latin america which has long been called the continent of the future and by many measures it seems the future may be now. brazil has a booming commodities market. colombia has posted record economic growth rates. and chile is on the brink of first world status. despite these significant stride, latin america remains in many places crippled by poverty and crime. secretary of state hillary clinton recently visited mexico city where she met with leaders to revise a war on drug strategy. >> we know that the demand for drugs drives much of this i lissity trade. that guns purchased in the united states as we saw some of the examples outside, are used to facilitate violence here in mexico. and the united states must and is doing its part to help you and us meet those challenges. >> rose: several weeks ago i sat down for a discussion about latin america's new path and its implication for the united states with john coatsworth, dean of columbia university school of international and public affairs, kevin casas-zamora, senior fellow at the brookings institution and former vice president of costa rica. greg grahnin, professor of latin american history at new york university and michael shifter, incoming president of the interamerican dialogue. here is that conversation. >> rose: where is latin america today? >> latin america is in an odd point in its history. it has survived for the most part through the great recession. less damage than united states. mexico has suffered a lot because of its closer ties to the u.s. but the rest of the continent seems to be recovering rapidly. at the same time, latin america is much less dependent on the united states and its relations with the united states, more independent if you will than in the past two centuries. so it's at a point where it is defining its own future. looking for institutions that can embody it and its relationship with the united states is becoming much more complicated. >> also latin america is more than ever i think is going in lots of different directions at once. brazil and chile are ascendant globalizers. other countries are looking more inward. some of the politics, there is much more confrontational in some countries, more consensual in other countries, there is advances in the social agenda in some countries, less so in other countries. i think globalization has lead to divergent paths for latin america so it is increasingly difficult to againize about the region. what we can say is that there is greater distancing from the united states politically of all countries even though some like mexico, central america are very integrated economically but politically they want elbow room. they want breathing space from the united states that is happening all over and there is a greater focus on the social questions, social agenda. >> there are three or four big stories in latin america up to date. one is the emergence of the brazil as a world power. that is one that is very obvious. the second story is about latin america becoming more worldly. the number and the diversity of alliances that latin america is forging with the world is much greater than ever before. >> then you have a third story which is less which is expansion. the huge expansion of the middle classes. places like mexico and brazil that has all sorts of political and economic implications. and i would say that there is a fourth, less benign phenomenon which is the huge crime and drug trafficking problem that is affecting the region which is really threatening to unravel the whole social fabric in latin america. >> and i would agree with that. i would agree with all three of my fellow panelists said. i would be more specific in terms of the electoral trends over the last ten years what we have seen over the last ten years is this remarkable emergence of a center left political coalition across the region and one country after another really trying to map out, their own way, latin america's own way very distinct from the united states and dissenting in very keyways from what is traditionally been u.s. policy in latin america. latin america was early on a dissenter of george bush's militarism and unilateralism. we saw dissenting from the war on-- the invasion of iraq and a number of other moves to institutionalize unilateralism. we also saw latin america take the initiative in trying to move beyond this extreme deregulation that crippled latin america in many ways during the 1990s. economic deregulation. when you see in other words, is latin america really grappling with the two problems that in many ways derailed the u.s. in the last couple of years. the militarism that took shape during the bush administration and the extreme economic deregulation. the united states is now just coming to terms with those two. latin america has had a year of trying to work through them and i think they have been paging enormous strides. >> rose: all of you are saying it is pulling away from the united states. why is that? >> i think there are a number of real structure reasons, global reasons you see. the united states no longer the sole creditor and source of capital for latin america. they now have capital in china, deepening relations with china. >> and latin america is much less dependent on external capital than it was just 10 or 15 years ago. >> exactly. there is much more integration among latin american countries with which is a new thing. >> with each other. >> in terms of economics. >> in terms of economics that is a relatively -- >> but even countries that had very deep connections to the united states economically and after all migration, mexico, central america were so interconnected cultural and economically but nonetheless most countries are still pulling back politically. they want to assert themselves. they want to be treated on different terms in the traditional kind of reflex tutorial, paternalistic. because the differences in power are so great. and that's lead to a kind of patronizing attitude. and the united states doesn't have patience to deal with countries that are kind of standing up and trying to assert their own autonomy and that lead to some strains. even though the economics are very tight and the culture is very tight and we have remittances going back and forth. families are sending $65 billion remittances to their families from the united states back to latin america, a big source of foreign exchange in many countries in latin america. but the politics and the attitude is still one of taking a little more distance. >> latin america does not necessarily feel that they are being ignored even though that is often the perception here. i would argue that there is actually an inverse relationship between the sense that latin america is not talked about. and its historic importance to the united states. latin america in many ways served as a check and balance on u.s. foreign policy. the number of the most successful foreign policy instruments, liberal, multilateralism, for instance, a recognition of the sovereignty of other nations comes out of struggle out of latin america. latin america forcing the united states to match a little bit more, it's deals with its actual superpower action. and in many ways, latin america has often time after time saved the united states from its own worst instincts. the good neighbor policy, for instance, under fdr, that becomes the model for liberal multilateralism that fdr puts in place on a global scale. panamericanism is basically the model that woodrow wilson brings to paris in 1919 for the versaille conference, the 14 points, the 14th point of the 14 points is modelled on panamericanism. latin america has played a shadow role in u.s. history that i think it's importance is inversely correlated to the degree that people, that it's not talked about in u.s. political culture. >> we're in a different moment, though. i think now i think all of these good neighbor policies, alliance for progress, that is of the past. what we are confronting now is a set of opportunities in latin america and the caribbean. an agenda that has to do with drugs and security and energy and economics and immigration and environment and climate change and all these things. wh