Advanced Search
Trip to California - Home Movies
HA shot of beach with lots of yellow and green umbrellas from hotel balcony. HA ocean front hotel. HA buildings along beach front. TLS 2 distant figures in ocean waves. TLS yellow and green beach umbrellas on beach; pan along people relaxing under umbrellas on beach. MS middle aged white man sunbathing. MS two young white women in old 1940s bathing suits walk by. MS from inside hotel room looking out towards ocean. POV from hotel room of yellow and green umbrellas on the beach front. Home movies from our beach vacation.
Trip to California - Home Movies
MS front entrance of Hotel Miramar. MS white man in gray suit walks toward the camera. POV from inside the hotel of a woman in a yellow dress walking up the entrance path. MS middle-aged white woman in yellow dress. MS pan of grounds of hotel, lots of flower beds and small bungalows. MS man in gray suit walking from hotel entrance. MS pan hotel grounds with small tables and umbrellas amid flower beds and manicured lawn. MS woman in yellow dress standing next to flowers by entrance gate to the Hotel Miramar.
Trip to California - Home Movies
HA Long shot along of highway along beachfront. MS white woman in yellow dress and younger white woman in black dress walking arm-in-arm. MS four women in dresses standing outside tiki hut on the beach. LS of the ocean, young woman silhouetted in the FG. Pan down exterior of large stone building (fancy hotel). HA yellow and green umbrellas and people on the beach. Pan along crowded beachfront. MS middle-aged white couple relaxing on beach in bathing suits. They smile and laugh for the camera. LS fancy hotel on the beach. MS waves washing onto beach; people play in the surf with inflatable toys.
Trip to California - Home Movies
MS part of the exterior of Grauman's Chinese Theater (Mann's Chinese Theater) in Hollywood. Pan down to white man in gray suit walking out of doorway near Palm Trees. CU footprints and handprints of Frederic March outside the Theater. CU footprints and handprints of Alice Fay. CU footprints and handprints of Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy.
Trip to California - Home Movies
Nice LS of buildings along waterfront, from the looks of it, this is Long Beach. Pan along buildings on the waterfront. LS plane flying overhead. TLS US passenger liner "Manhattan" at dock, with US flags painted on her sides, for assurance of neutrality during WWII. MS white car parked on dock near ship. Pan down passenger liner "Manhattan" to two white woman posing in front. MS white man in gray suit and woman in blue dress posing in front of car. Rather shaky shots from car of oil wells in Long Beach, California. MS white car parked in front of oil wells. MS seaplane; white man in gray suit gets out of plane. MS seaplane taxis away.
Trip to California - Home Movies
MS white car parked on the side of the road by tree. CU white-wall tire spinning as car drives away. MS looking at windows with fancy iron decorations. LS looking from hotel at people sitting in garden. TLS small gift shop. Pan down white adobe Mission style building. MS white man in gray suit leaving building. TLS Spanish Mission style hotel building. TLS pan down Spanish Mission church to white car parked in front. MS man and wife posing in front of their car. Brief TLS of old church.
Trip to California - Home Movies
HA rocky outcroppings in Pacific Ocean. LS California coastline. POV from side window of car of Pacific Ocean and coast. LS Spanish Mission church with garden in front. LS large building (maybe a country club at a golf course). MS car parked in front of hotel, middle-aged woman gets out of car and smiles. LS Pebble Beach golf course on the Pacific Ocean. MS middle-aged woman with dark hair standing on veranda looking out at Pebble Beach golf course. LS looking from inside building out at golf course and ocean.
Trip to California - Home Movies
LS rocky coast along the Pacific Ocean. LS small fishing boats docked. TLS pan across docked boats.
Flamingo Hotel
Master 201, Tape 2 TLS vertical pillar reading Flamingo and the hotel and casino (the orginal 1946 building). MS sign for Hotel Flamingo, with the Champagne Tower in the BG (1950s era version of the hotel). MS sign for the Hotel Flamingo, pan along sign to the hotel (the original building).
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, Sept. 10, 1981. Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada questions the nominee.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
DO NOT USE Opening credits/logos for WETA/KEAT/CPB.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
WS hearing room, people milling about at end of recess time. Graphics: Senate Confirmation Hearings of Sandra Day O'Connor September 10, 1981. Cut to reporter Michael Grant (?) talking to camera to sum up morning's testimony, then chatting with professor Norm Ornstein (?) and Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ).
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. MS Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), committee's Chairman, announcing, The Judiciary Committee will come to order. Questioning of Judge O'Connor by the members of the committee will continue. Judge O'Connor, I would remind you that you are still under oath. Judge O'CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Senator Laxalt of Nevada. (TOPIC: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY OVER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES) Senator LAXALT (Paul Laxalt, R-NV). Judge O'Connor, in 1972 legislation which was sponsored by you was enacted by the Arizona Legislature giving the State attorney general power to approve all regulations proposed by State agencies. Here at the Federal level the experts have debated what inherent authority the President has over Federal agencies, including the so-called independent agencies, due to his constitutional role as Chief Executive. We are in the throes now of attempting to enact and implement administratively as well as up here legislatively substantial regulatory reform. The essence of that problem is jurisdictional in part. I would like to have your views as to what Executive authority over the so-called independent administrative agencies you believe a President of the United States has. Judge O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, Senator Laxalt, I think it may depend on the legislation in each instance as to what role has been envisioned for the Executive with respect to some particular agency. I recognize that Congress is dealing today in terms of legislative review of the relationship that would be appropriate in terms of agency regulation. In fact, I think some consideration is being given-if I am not mistaken-to even having the legislative body itself involved by some sort of legislative review. These proposals, of course, have not been tested yet; and I cannot speak to the constitutional validity of them, I think; but it involves essentially a question of the essential separation of powers concept and the extent to which, under the separation of powers at the Federal level, it is considered desirable to have some form of oversight of the administrative bodies, whether it be by the executive branch or the legislative branch. To the extent that these administrative agencies are executive agencies or agencies under the executive branch of Government and that the executive branch is given some role of oversight in connection with them, it does not appear to involve a question of separation of powers. To the extent that the concept or vehicle used is one of legislative review of the regulations or the actions, we have different questions at play. In Arizona, as you have indicated, the State adopted a practice in the year that you mentioned of having the attorney general part of the executive branch review the regulations of agencies of the executive branch for legality prior to their adoption by those agencies. That system seems to have served reasonably well. Senator LAXALT. If I understand you correctly, in the absence of some legislative prohibition there would be no constitutional bar on the grounds of separation of powers or otherwise, restraining a President from exercising direct authority and responsibility over the independent agencies if the legislation in question opened the door for him to do so? Judge O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, Senator Laxalt, it would appear to me-again without attempting to express any legal opinion on a given case-that within the executive branch, provided the legislation allowed for it, the executive branch could be assigned certain roles for review of those executive branch agencies. Senator LAXALT. AS you indicated, a combination of proper oversight here of those agencies plus general supervision on the part of the Executive theoretically at least should get the job done? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, we would hope so.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) continues questioning. (TOPIC: VENUE RULES) Senator LAXALT. Let us talk about venue for a moment. I do not know whether or not you have followed the progress of rather substantial venue legislation we are pursuing through this committee. Under section 1391 of title 28 of the United States Code actions in which the government is a party may be brought in one of four places-I am sure you are already familiar with this-No. 1, where the plaintiff resides; two, where the defendant resides; three, where the cause of action arose; or, four, where any real property involved in the action is located. As you probably already know from your previous experience in a Western State, many cases involving Federal land located in Western States are brought here in Washington, D.C. As a result, there is little opportunity for individuals vitally interested in the outcome to participate in such a proceedings effectively. We have had land decisions decided here; we have had water decisions affecting our water decided here by district judges within the District of Columbia. In addition, there is some feeling that the Federal judges in those Western States have a better understanding of the practical consequences of these lawsuits over land use. Considering that the Federal Government owns or controls approximately 50 percent of the land in the Western States-and in your State and mine substantially more than that; ours is 87; I do not know exactly what yours is, but I think it is near that-people in those States increasingly feel that they have no say about significant matters that affect them on a daily basis. Now, Judge O'Connor, do you consider a change in the venue rules which requires suits to be brought in the district where the outcome of the suit will have the greatest impact an appropriate action by this Congress? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, it appears to me that that determination is one that is peculiarly appropriate, I suppose, to the legislative branch to determine. If there were no other impediments involved normally we would want to consider in terms of where a cause of action is brought some of the factors affecting the convenience of the parties. In other words, if most of the parties find that it would be more convenient to have the trial brought in a particular location rather than another, that is a factor that normally one would want to consider. As far as any statutory changes are concerned concerning the provisions for venue, that seems to me to be a policy question appropriate for the legislative branch to address certainly. Senator LAXALT. Do you see that this poses any degree of constitutional question? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, I do not know offhand whether any particular constitutional issue could be raised concerning it. I really have not studied that problem and would want to have the benefit of some research before I could answer that. None comes immediately to mind, but I have not researched the question. Senator LAXALT. I understand.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) continues questioning. (TOPIC: JUDICIAL NOTICE) Senator LAXALT. Let us talk about judicial notice for just a moment or so. Reviewing your own record, it has been very pleasant for this Senator as a former lawyer and one who has worked on this committee for quite a while to find that you have, in fact, as a judge, exercised considerable judicial restraint. You, in fact, in your position, have been a judge rather than a public official or a legislator; and you have operated within those constraints. One of the areas where license can be used, I would imagine, by any judge, is in looking beyond the record factually as a judge may or may not find that record and getting out into the labyrinth that we call judicial notice. This brings into play then, factually and otherwise, an independent situation which may or may not be proper. In this general area I would like to ask you this, Judge O'Connor: In the context of several of your own opinions you have been called upon to address the permissible scope of judicial notice. As a matter of policy rather than one of statutory construction, what do you, as a judge who has sat on the State level and who now aspires to sit on our highest court, view as the proper range of judicial notice? I suspect that in controversial cases that have been alluded to here previously Roe v. Wade and others-perhaps our Supreme Court in that situation did, I think, indulge in far too much latitude in this area. May I have your views? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, with respect to the application of those things of which a court can take judicial notice I can share with you my views as a State court judge when I have had to face the question, and that basically is that the court was allowed to take judicial notice only of matters which were, in effect, beyond dispute-for example, a date or the time within which the Sun rose or set on a given date, or the location of a particular community geographically, or something of that sort. These are the instances in which we would normally apply judicial notice at the State level-I would say very limited circumstances. Senator LAXALT. Do you see an application of the doctrine in respect to the functions of the Supreme Court? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, I have not had occasion to review all the instances in which the Supreme Court has been called upon to take judicial notice of something, so I would be perhaps not in a position to give you examples of where the Court may have adopted a broader view if it has. I can only speak from my experience as a State court judge in which the application of the doctrine would be very limited.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) continues questioning. (TOPIC: REGULATORY STATUTES MAY VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE) Senator LAXALT. Judge O'Connor, as chairman of the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee within the framework of this general committee I am becoming increasingly involved with issues of lawmaking by administrative agencies. Senator Heflin alluded to this during the course of his questioning but did not have an opportunity to pursue it further, so I would like to if I may. Many have criticized the Congress for giving this power to agencies too broadly without sufficient guidelines, essentially abdicating congressional responsibility to legislate to the agencies. That has been part of our problem here. We have passed legislation for many years in general form and, I think as a political matter, passed the buck downtown and let them do the dirty work by fleshing it out with rules and regulations on the part of many agencies, none of whom in terms of personnel are responsive to the process-unelected people. Some eminent legal figures have concluded-I guess eminent legal figures are ordinarily those who agree with you-that certain of these statutes violate constitutional doctrine that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking power without clear and adequate guidelines. Now, Judge O'Connor, do you believe that some existing regulatory statutes may be unconstitutional because of the failure of Congress to adequately lay down the general policies and standards that animate those statutes? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Laxalt, it seems to me that there was a time in our Nation's history when the Supreme Court used to look under the separation of powers doctrine at the delegation of legislative power to the executive and administrative agencies and review very strictly those delegations. Those were the days of Schlecter Poultry v. United States back in the 1930's. Such an uproar arose at that time that ultimately the Court reversed that trend and began to approve very sweeping delegations of power to administrative agencies and has upheld agency regulations which had really a very tenuous basis of support in the legislation itself. One can recall for example the Red Lion Broadcasting case where, under very limited delegation by Congress, very sweeping regulations were upheld. My observation is that in recent years there are some indications at least that the Court is examining the legislative basis for agency regulations more carefully than had been the case for a while. A very recent case dealt with whether an agency had to make a cost-benefit analysis of its regulations, and I believe the Court indicated that because that was not reflected as a duty in the legislation therefore none would be implied. Certainly it would appear to me that the legislative branch has a very important role to play in this area in terms of determining for itself the extent to which it wants to be specific in its delegation and limitation of power to the Administrative agency to adopt regulations. Just as a personal view expressed by one who has been in the legislative branch, it seemed to me then that very careful guidelines were appropriate to be drawn by the legislative branch in permitting agencies to adopt rules and regulations. Certainly the legislative branch has a terribly important role in this. The Court's role then becomes one of examining the legislation to determine whether, in fact, the administrative agency is authorized to adopt the types of regulations that it has. In that regard I can only indicate to you what I may see as a trend of more careful study of that matter by the courts. Senator LAXALT. I thank you very much, Judge. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my time and my questioning. I thank the chairman. I thank the judge.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, Sept. 10, 1981. Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio questions the nominee.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
WS of committee hearing room. The CHAIRMAN (Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-SC) introduces... The distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Metzenbaum. (TOPIC: CONCERNS OF THE POOR) Senator METZENBAUM (Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-OH). Judge O'Connor, your testimony yesterday led us down some paths about which I would like to make a few comments. Your thoughts for limiting attorney's fees in section 1983 cases and keeping the $10,000 jurisdictional prerequisite for other Federal question cases, in my opinion, actually strike at the heart of Federal jurisdiction. I think that what disturbs me particularly is that apart from whether the Federal courts should have this jurisdiction in general, the attorney's fee and $10,000 limitations actually strike only one group of litigants, and that is the poor. That is one reason Congress created the right to attorney's fees in section 1983 cases just a few years ago, in 1976. Since this is a matter that seems to me to be so relevant, since I am concerned that if there is any group of people in this country at the moment who are the forgotten people of the country and who are going to be even more forgotten in the months and years ahead, I am disturbed about that kind of expression or that direction. I wonder if you would care to comment, because in your past legislative history, in all fairness, I see nothing to indicate that you have been indifferent to the concerns of the poor. Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, indeed I am not indifferent to the concerns of the poor. The legislation in section 1988, as I read it, is certainly not limited to the award of attorney's fees to people who are impoverished. Indeed, I suppose a very wealthy individual can file a suit under section 1983 and seek attorney's fees under section 1988. So I do not believe that the legislation, as drafted at least, is in any way limited to a protection of the poor. No doubt a portion of the motivation for its enactment was to enable suits to be brought by anyone regardless of their means to do so. Senator METZENBAUM. But the attorney's fee question hurts them the most because those who are the "haves" can hire their own lawyers. It is the "have nots" who really have the difficulty of finding counsel, and counsel taking it then on an "if come" basis could get awarded attorney's fees under the law. Your article suggests a contrary point of view. Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, my article suggested that Congress should review very carefully its delegations of authority to sue in the first instance and also a review of those matters in which it thinks attorney's fees provisions are appropriate. The article in no way suggested that that was a function of the judiciary, and I am sure that Congress in its wisdom will consider all of these factors as it makes this type of review. I have not suggested, I think, that people who are impoverished be denied access to the courts. In fact, that would be a most unfortunate suggestion and one which I would not make. But the extent to which Congress wants to authorize suits in the first instance in the Federal courts as opposed to the State court and the extent to which Congress wants to authorize suits and have attorney's fees a possibility are appropriate things, it seems to me, for the Congress itself to consider as a matter of policy.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) continues questioning. (TOPIC: MORE LITIGATION IN STATE COURTS) Senator METZENBAUM. You mention the matter of the State courts. Actually you also suggest that more litigation ought to be in the State courts rather than just full access to the Federal courts. But actually State courts really have had more experience in the constitutional issues where criminal matters were involved, and much less experience with respect to civil constitutional claims, which are the subject of all section 1983 civil rights cases and other Federal question cases. You would agree with that, would you not? Judge O'CONNOR. Yes; I would agree generally that the expertise of the State courts in the constitutional area, while not exclusively confined to criminal cases, has been primarily in terms of numbers in that area. I think that the State courts have developed a pretty good capacity to deal with those questions, and I see no reason why that capacity could not be extended to other areas as well. Senator METZENBAUM. In view of your desire to shift Federal question and section 1983 cases to the State courts and to rely on the State legislatures as indicated by your response to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire, would you disagree with this statement by Justice Stewart speaking for a unanimous Court in Mitchum v. Foster in 1972 that, "the very purpose of section 1983 was to interpose the Federal courts between the States and the people as guardians of the people's Federal rights to protect the people from unconstitutional actions under color of State law whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial"? Obviously, he is saying that we need to have that Federal right and the right to go into the Federal court because in many instances the denial of rights occurred not alone at the executive level, not alone at the legislative level, but also at the judicial level. If you force those cases back into the judicial level, then how does the litigant get a chance to protect his or her civil rights? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, I do not disagree at all with the statement that you read. The framework of review could of course encompass making an initial presentation of one's case at the State level in any given situation, and if it were believed that a Federal right had been violated and that it was not adequately vindicated at the State level then to pursue the remedy further through the Federal courts. That certainly is a possibility, it strikes me. Senator METZENBAUM. I am not sure I follow that. If you cannot get your rights litigated and the court has ruled against you in the State court, are you suggesting that you could relitigate the issue in the Federal courts? Judge O'CONNOR. I am suggesting, Senator Metzenbaum, that to the extent that one is in a Federal court and believes that the result on an issue of Federal law was erroneously received or determined one can raise that issue then in the Federal court. Senator METZENBAUM. Do you not think res judicata would prevail to cause the Federal court to dispose of that matter rather summarily on the basis that the case had been decided and the constitutional issue had been raised in State court? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, not if you are appealing from that very matter of course res judicata is not attached. If you are pursuing your remedy in Federal court, and you feel an error has been made, and you then go to the Federal court for review, no, you are not precluded from doing that. If on the other hand you had litigated your case, and dropped it, and had taken no appeal or petition for review in the Federal system, and then tried to pursue it again, yes, then you would have a res judicata problem. Senator METZENBAUM. If you had litigated the issue in the State court, and the State has ruled that you had no Federal right or constitutional right, and you do not appeal, and then you file suit anew in the Federal court, is it not entirely probable or logical that defense counsel would immediately file a motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata? Judge O'CONNOR. Yes, Senator Metzenbaum, if you do not pursue your immediately available remedies within the Federal system and let it be terminated at the State level. Yes, of course, you are thereafter precluded.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) continues questioning. (CONTINUATION ON TOPIC: MORE LITIGATION IN STATE COURTS) Senator METZENBAUM. What would be the immediately available remedy in that instance? You have lost in the State court; now what is your immediately available Federal remedy? Judge O'CONNOR. You can file your petition for certiorari of course if it has been determined adversely on the Federal issue. If you have gone to the highest State court you can certainly do that. Senator METZENBAUM. Now you have to take your case all the way up through the appellate procedure and then file your petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. That really is not really a very practical remedy for the average litigant because by that time he or she has pretty well run out of money, particularly if they are not well-heeled. That would mean you were in the fourth court: You had been in the lower court, the appellate court, and the supreme court of the State, and then you take the case on certiorari. Then you have to make out that Federal issue that is involved. I just wonder whether realistically speaking, by moving more of the civil cases through the State courts and forcing litigants there and also denying them their attorney's fees, a great injustice would not be done to hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of Americans who might otherwise want to litigate a Federal question. Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, these are the precise things that I would assume this body would consider when it considers that issue. Of course you want to review all these matters very carefully. I am sure that the Senate in its wisdom will do precisely that. (TOPIC: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM) Senator METZENBAUM. All right. Let me change the subject. In your response to the committee's questionnaire and your other answers here you have made it very clear that you are opposed to "judicial activism." Exactly what is and is not judicial activism is not that easy to define. It is very easy to say that the Supreme Court or the court should not make laws. I would like to ask some questions about some of the major issues in some cases that have already been decided by the Supreme Court. Most of them are quite old and probably will never again come before the Supreme Court. The Baker v. Carr case-this 1962 decision allowing the Federal courts to require local legislative bodies to be fairly apportioned- probably did more to reshape our political system than almost any other decision of the Supreme Court. It largely ended the gross malapportionment that existed in many States. In your opinion was that decision an inappropriate exercise of judicial activism? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, you are correct in your characterization of the dramatic results of that decision and its progeny. I think what the Court really did in Baker v. Carr was to reexamine the question of what is a political question which the Supreme Court will or will not consider. I think before Baker v. Carr the Court had taken a more restrictive view, if you will, of what is of justiciability-of what is a political question-and in what case will the Court avoid deciding it at all because it is a political question. In Baker v. Carr it really drew more liberal lines, if you will, in determining what is a political question which the Court will consider. That now appears to be the leading case on the subject of what is or is not a political question. Senator METZENBAUM. And that is the case that established the one man, one vote rule. Judge O'CONNOR. That is correct. Senator METZENBAUM. Was that an inappropriate exercise of judicial activism? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, I may have been heard to comment at the time that it concerned me but-that perhaps it was. Certainly the time that has intervened in the meantime and the acceptance of that decision has put it pretty much in place in terms of its present effect and application.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor for Supreme Court justice. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) continues questioning. (TOPIC: SEX DISCRIMINATION) Senator METZENBAUM. Do you think there was inappropriate judicial activism in 1971 for the Burger Court to rule for the first time in Reed v. Reed that sex discrimination was unconstitutional? Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, it was in my view an appropriate consideration of the problem of gender-based discrimination. (TOPIC: CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT) Senator METZENBAUM. Do you think it inappropriate judicial activism for a Federal district court to order major changes in a prison after finding that conditions in a penal system constituted cruel and unusual punishment? That was in the case of Hutto v. Finney, which reached the Supreme Court in 1978. Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, I think the constitutional provision against cruel and unusual punishment has been of course part of our Constitution for many years; and it is certainly not inappropriate for the Court to consider a case that alleges that a particular prison condition constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I do not view that as any unusual exercise of judicial activism. You can examine then the particular remedies that are selected by the Federal district court, assuminx it finds such a condition, and then begin to discuss the extent to which the district court remedies exceed what is regarded as an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion once that condition is found. It seems to me that is a different question. Senator METZENBAUM. I have just one last question. I have a number of other cases of this same kind of judicial activism, but my real question is this: Is not the matter of judicial activism a question of which side of the court you are on-and I mean tennis court, not the court in the other sense-a question of which way the ball bounces as to whether one man's or one woman's judicial activism is not another party's legalistic approach to what should or should not be done, and that overreacting to the question of judicial activism could be just as bad as overinvolvement by the courts in attempting to make new law? I would just hope that this question of judicial activism would not be of such a nature as to cause you to lean over backward or forward with respect to the actions of the Supreme Court, because I think it is these cliches that get us all in trouble. I do not think they will get you in trouble, but I at least for one would hope that the Court would not do less in meeting its responsibilities than it has done in the past in order to protect constitutional rights of the people of this country. Judge O'CONNOR. Senator Metzenbaum, there is always a danger in oversimplification and in sloganism, and I understand that.
Gospel Singing Jubilee No. 260
Gospel Singing Jubilee No 260 Featuring The Florida Boys (Les Beasley, Glen Allred, Billy Todd, Tommy Atwood), The Happy Goodman Family (aka The Goodmans), Aaron Wilburn, with special guests The Cathedral Quartet (Roger Horne, Roy Tremble, Glen Payne, George Younce). Hosted by Les Beasley of the Florida Boys. The Florida Boys featuring Tommy Atwood "Wasted Years" The Happy Goodman Family "Shoutin' Sound" (01:03:49) Ricky Goodman on drums The Cathedral Quartet featuring Glen Payne "Lord, You Know" (01:06:50) Aaron Wilburn "The Happy Kind" (01:09:52) The Florida Boys w/ Darrell Stewart featuring Glen Allred "More About Jesus" (01:11:52) The Happy Goodman Family "This is Just What Heaven Means to Me" (01:15:27) The Cathedral Quartet "Redemption Draweth Nigh" (01:18:19) The Florida Boys featuring Billy Todd "There's A Rainbow of Love" (01:23:13) Darrell Stewart on piano The Happy Goodman Family featuring Sam Goodman "Lead Me To The Altar" (01:26:34) Aaron Wilburn "So Much More" (01:29:29) The Cathedral Quartet featuring George Younce "Yesterday" (01:32:59) Derrell Stewart of The Florida Boys performs piano instrumental (01:36:57) The Happy Goodman Family featuring Rusty Goodman "The Lighthouse" (01:38:31) The Cathedral Quartet "Praise the Lord (I'll Have A New Life)" (01:42:38)
Film History Museum Exhibit
TLS Polish adults and children -- note the two Polish or Hungarian soldiers-- touring museum display.
LAWMAKERS
PAUL DUKE, LINDA WERTHEIMER, COKIE ROBERTS in studio, DUKE v.o.-on program-SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR confirmation hearings, BUDGET debates in HOUSE, Florida Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER turns 81, fights for SENIOR CITIZEN issues.