Transcript
PIETRO NIVOLA: Today's seminar is loosely titled "Reshaping the Supreme Court." And I say loosely because it's meant to be a really wide-ranging and free-wheeling discussion about what's happening to the high court these days and what might lay in store for it. Among the kinds of questions our panel may want to take up this morning are the following:
How come the confirmation process for Judge John Roberts, the nominee for Chief Justice, is so grueling compared to, say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's confirmation, which, if I recall as correctly, sailed through the Senate on a 96 to 3 vote. Today, by contrast, it's conceivable that all eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee may actually turn thumbs down.
Another question: How come the Roberts confirmation proceedings are so retrospective instead of prospective; that is, concerned with how he might handle past precedents rather than how he might decide interesting questions of the future, including complex issues involving the limits of genetic engineering, for example, or friction between new technologies and civil liberties, new concerns about free speech in business regulation and so on.
Third, what are the chances, if any, that the Court may really some day overrule its most controversial decision, Roe v. Wade?
And finally, a fourth possibility: How should one ultimately characterize the current Court? Is this majority really "conservative?" and I put that in quotes, or is it just conservative on sort of Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but basically pretty liberal on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Well, these are just a few provocative options.
We have a very distinguished panel of guests here this morning to talk about them or actually whatever else you deem worthwhile.
Read the full event transcript (PDF—152kb)
View Full Transcript »