• Home
  • News
  • O’Connor Corrects Jon Stewart in Daily Show Appearance (See the Video Clips)

U.S. Supreme Court

O’Connor Corrects Jon Stewart in Daily Show Appearance (See the Video Clips)

Posted Mar 4, 2009 9:04 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

image

Screen shot of O'Connor with Jon Stewart.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is making the rounds on two network shows, and one of them is Comedy Central.

O’Connor appeared yesterday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, appearing relaxed and doing “a pretty good job riffing with Stewart,” according to Florida International law professor Howard Wasserman, writing at PrawfsBlawg. He pronounced her interview “quite good.”

Wasserman says O’Connor has always seemed a bit “self-serious”; during the interview she corrected Stewart to explain the U.S. Supreme Court has oral arguments rather than trials and she objected to his use of the term “swing justice.”

Stewart corrected himself, calling O’Connor the "most principled justice," and she answered, “Much better.”

Today O’Connor appeared on Good Morning America, referring to judges—those on American Idol—to emphasize the need for civics instruction in schools, ABC News reports. "Only a third of Americans can name the three branches of government. That's scary," O’Connor said. "But 75 percent of kids can tell you American Idol judges."


Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Mar 4, 2009 9:17 AM CST

Most Americans also don’t understand the relationship between federal, state and local government.  I’ve even met some novice state legislators who thought that cities levied the school district taxes.  O’Connor is correct in suggesting there is a very widespread ignorance of civics, and I hope she can make some progress there.  Paula Abdul is, of course, a lot prettier.

Flag this comment

2.

J.D.
Mar 4, 2009 9:25 AM CST

Stewart is pretty dumb. But he thinks he’s brilliant. Bad combo.

Flag this comment

3.

Power
Mar 4, 2009 2:03 PM CST

Stewart is great.  One of the sharpest minds on television.  And he is able to be serious with a guest like this and funny at the same time.  Always fun to watch.

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Mar 4, 2009 3:47 PM CST

One of the “sharpest minds on television” thinks the Supreme Court holds trials. Doesn’t say much for media personalities, nor Mr. Power.

Flag this comment

5.

Power
Mar 4, 2009 4:03 PM CST

That’s Ms. Power, but I’m not surprised you would assume the opposite, and that doesn’t say much for you.

Flag this comment

6.

B. McLeod
Mar 5, 2009 8:05 AM CST

You two could form your own firm, “J.D., Power & Associates.”  (Might be confusingly similar to another business, though).

Flag this comment

7.

J.D.
Mar 5, 2009 9:32 AM CST

Ms. Power—Are you arguing that the high Court, in fact, does hold trials? Because your counterargument, if one can call it that, is pretty pathetic.

Flag this comment

8.

Mack Daddy
Mar 6, 2009 6:30 AM CST

Hey Just Dumb, whether a non-lawyer comedian knows that the Sup. Ct. doesn’t hold trials (or doesn’t know OA is not called a trial)has nothing to do with intelligence.  There may be “obvious” things about talk show hosting that you don’t know.

Flag this comment

9.

Bob
Mar 6, 2009 6:38 AM CST

You all realize that Justice O’Connor “correcting” Jon Stewart is just part of the gag, right?  Stewart more than likely knew that appellate courts have oral arguments and not trials (most of the time).

Flag this comment

10.

Original Jurisdiction
Mar 6, 2009 6:41 AM CST

The supreme court DOES hold trials when it is the court of original jurisdiction, such as in disputes between the states.

Flag this comment

11.

New Times
Mar 6, 2009 6:50 AM CST

Good point from the honorable justice, but when is the U.S. Supreme Court going to allow cameras to show oral arguments, preferably on YOUTUBE? If civics lessons are important, SCOTUS needs to modernize to reach a new generation.

Flag this comment

12.

Dan K.
Mar 6, 2009 7:34 AM CST

Agree with #11.

A Supreme Court justice complaining no one knows what she does… Well, when only a few people a year ever get to see any part of your branch of the government in action, it’s no wonder.

CSPAN1 - House
CSPAN2 - Senate
Fox/CNN/MSNBC follow the President everywhere he goes and witness the slightest move he makes.

SCOTUS is seen by 3 newspaper reporters and 25 law students on a field trip.

Gee, which one are the people going to know the least about?

Flag this comment

13.

Hoyas11
Mar 6, 2009 7:46 AM CST

Great clip! #10 O.J. beat me to my comment. See U.S. Cons. Art. III.

Flag this comment

14.

JD
Mar 6, 2009 9:06 AM CST

Although I agree that it is more appropriate to refer to such trials as “oral arguments”, I am going to play advocate for Stewart and submit that there are two definitions of trial (according to dictionary.com):

trial–noun 1. Law. a. the examination before a judicial tribunal of the facts put in issue in a cause, often including issues of law as well as those of fact.
b. the determination of a person’s guilt or innocence by due process of law.

No offense to Justice O’Connor, but if Stewart intended the first definition to apply, I would tend to agree with him that “trial” is an acceptable choice of words.

Flag this comment

15.

Donald
Mar 6, 2009 10:14 AM CST

Now that’s a swing-vote—from belittling Stewart to advocating on his behalf in only 10 posts.  Or is that called flip-flopping?

Flag this comment

16.

SeaTownAttorney
Mar 6, 2009 10:15 AM CST

Gee gang, Stewart is a comedian, not a news anchor. In that capacity,  I’d say he’s pretty brilliant, and can be forgiven the occasional ignorance of precise legal distinctions.  (He is clearly smarter than plenty of news commentators.)  More frightening is the fact that so many of our POLITICIANS don’t seem to understand the relationship between the three branches of government….

Flag this comment

17.

M
Mar 6, 2009 10:16 AM CST

I don’ t see what’s so “self-serious” about explaining the difference between a trial and an oral argument on appeal.  Unfortunately I know partners who seem to get them mixed up as well.

Flag this comment

18.

J.D.
Mar 6, 2009 10:59 AM CST

He’s a comedian. People who see his show as a “brilliant” political show are sad. It’s high-school level politics.

Flag this comment

19.

James Pollock
Mar 6, 2009 11:30 AM CST

High-school level politics would be a vast improvement over the grade-school politics we see now:  “Our guy is pure and principled and good, but your guy is evil and stupid!”  “Oh yeah?  Well OUR guy is nice to children and old ladies, and YOUR guy kicks kittens.”  “Nuh Uh!”  “Yeah huh”

Between the guys on the right convinced that Obama is the reincarnation of Karl Marx to the guys on the left convinced that W was the Antichrist, there’s not a lot of quality discussion.

Flag this comment

20.

andrea
Mar 6, 2009 11:56 AM CST

Oh, come on.  I saw the interview and she was joking about “swing justice.”  She did well, and Stewart was very respectful of her—almost in awe, while walking his usual fine line between seriousness and keeping it light.  I think it was a good way to get her word out to the audience she was seeking.  Any greater reading of all this is way overboard.

Flag this comment

21.

mdw
Mar 6, 2009 12:03 PM CST

#19, are you advocating a moderate point of view?  Didn’t you know things can only get done when we stand at extreme polar opposites?  And Stewart is great because he doesn’t play the bs game everyone else is playing and he might actually be inspiring some younger generations to pay attention!  Much better then our current educational systems. (Which, by the way, O’Connor was on to discuss.)

Flag this comment

22.

Joe Probasco
Mar 6, 2009 12:03 PM CST

Agreed re Obama but isn’t W, in fact, the antichrist? I’ll do some research but I’m pretty sure it’s a proven scientific fact.

Flag this comment

23.

JDirk
Mar 6, 2009 12:09 PM CST

J.D., the only way you could be a more obvious “troll “is if that was your user name.

Flag this comment

24.

sb
Mar 6, 2009 12:45 PM CST

Speaking of civics lessons—evidently, America needs civility lessons, too.  Man, it’s a good thing that not too many lay people read these articles, because I’m sure they would be unpleasantly surprised at the childishness and unprofessionalism shown by our society’s legal professionals.

Look, I don’t know what anyone has against Jon Stewart; he’s funny, he’s brilliantly funny, and if you don’t like his brand of humor that’s your opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact of his talent.  Lots of people don’t like Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler because they disagree with their chosen use of their talents, but it doesn’t diminish the underlying talent.  I don’t know the man personally, but as far as I can tell Jon is a nice guy, regardless of what you think about his show, so don’t call him names just because you don’t like his jokes.

Flag this comment

25.

J.D.
Mar 6, 2009 2:34 PM CST

Don’t get me wrong: Stewart’s fine as a comedian.

It’s the viewers who think of him as a brilliant political commentator whom I find pathetic. But if they’re still in high school, then I understand.

Flag this comment

26.

Justin
Mar 6, 2009 6:33 PM CST

ACTUALLY,

The Supreme Court CAN hold trials; it’s just that - in the modern era - they have invariably farmed them out. The Supreme Court, after all, does have original jurisdiction in certain types of cases.

Flag this comment

27.

Sean
Mar 6, 2009 8:32 PM CST

J.D., so people who think Jon Stewart is a brilliant political commentator are pathetic? Really. Wow. Putting aside how incredibly self-important (and ignorant) that statement come across, you might want to consider that the reason he is thought of as a brilliant political commentator is the brilliance by which he uses humor to discuss, frame and explain politics and world events. You seem to be willfully missing the point (not to mention uptight).  Given his ability to speak cogently, and sometimes with penetrating insights, while also getting a laugh, on a daily basis on an ever changing variety of complex subjects, do you really think that he is not intelligent? If only he had gone to law school and gotten a J.D. then his brilliance would be self-evident, and he also would be an expert on things that he knows nothing about.

Flag this comment

28.

A. Fan
Mar 8, 2009 9:10 AM CST

I’m surprised that most of the comments here are focused on Stewart.  Ok, it is his show, but his guest was one of the all-time greatest jurists ever.

Flag this comment

29.

B. McLeod
Mar 8, 2009 7:42 PM CST

True, but you don’t get ratings with that.  Paula Abdul, on the other hand, can really pull in the viewers.

Flag this comment

30.

J.D.
Mar 9, 2009 9:26 AM CST

Sean, there are thousands of “brilliant” political commentators out there. The fact that some reserve this special praise for a comedian is pathetic. It says a lot about the individual’s lack of knowledge of the political world.

But maybe Stewart really is the best the political left has—a comedian. That would also be sad.

Flag this comment

31.

R
Mar 10, 2009 10:32 AM CST

J.D., your politics are showing. You may disagree with Jon Stewart on his politics, and you may think his show is dumb or sophomoric, but to call Jon Stewart “pretty dumb” is just nonsensical. The guy is sharp as a tack, as anyone who has actually heard him in unscripted interviews can attest.

Flag this comment

32.

K.
Mar 12, 2009 11:45 AM CST

Why not go check out the website Justice O’Connor was there to promote? 

www.ourcourts.org

I haven’t played the games yet, but it looks quite fascinating.

P.S.  Justice O’Connor, if you read this, I do like and appreciate the website, and hopefully my kids will too, when they are older and can read—but I’d still rather have you on the bench.  Wish you had not retired!  :-)

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.