tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central March 6, 2013 1:00am-1:30am PST
[ applause ] [ cheers ] [ ♪ ♪ ] >> thanks again to billy eichner and kristin shaw. and check out the new tour sedates for my new spring tour at jeselnik.com. your presale code is the word dark. we'll see ya next week. before i go, let's take a look back at the best moments from tonight's show. >> hey, darlene, who's the black sheep in your family? intl my sister's kid jamal. >> who has those? who choose their flimsy relays?
>> which ways to anne hathaway, clearly, those people were making jokes. let's go. who did you rather sleep with, julia roberts or julia styles? don't answer that. >> ah, memories. good night, kids, go read a book. [ ♪ >> from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] captioning sponsored by comedy central >> jon: welcome to "the daily show." my name is jon stewart. we've got a good show tonight.
former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor is joining us this evening sitting right here discussing the supreme court and her new sitcom. [ laughter ] if you watch our program or are alive, you might be aware that this country has been facing some difficult economic times which have caused a great deal of soul searching about how we as a nation can identify and rectify the causes of our financial meltdown. we've been wringing our hands about it but the good news is it's already been fixed. >> the dow jones industrial at never before seen heights. >> all time high. >> making history today. >> if they tell you everything is awful, tell them no it's not. [laughter] [cheers and applause]
>> jon: amen. it's a march miracle the non-inflation adjusted values of stocks that 30 large companies that sort of tracked the american economy 50 years ago are higher than ever. we're back, baby. [cheers and applause] and the best part is we never had to fix our systemic issues. [ laughter ] it got better. that brings us to our new segment "i guess that's one problem we never have to worry about again." [ laughter ] here is the most impressive part of the comeback it took wall street five and a half years to repair the gaping wound they self inflicted. [ laughter ] it's another reason wall street is better than main street, faster healers. who knew that amongst wall street's many charms and talents was the healing ability of wolverine. [laughter] although we already knew they had the damaging power of
wolverine. [ laughter ] i sure wish we healed like that. anyhow, the point is we no longer have to worry about fixing wall street, unacceptable risk and volatility issues. the good news about history never repeating doesn't end there. you know what else we fixed? racism. bam! ba-bam! [cheers and applause] like the dow jones industrial average, black people in this country are at an all-time high. [ laughter ] we should have a ticker under the screen just tracking. [ laughter ] and with racism structural problems fixed, perhaps it's time to get rid of the clearly obsolete voting rights act of 1965. >> the voting rights act has been the law of the land for nearly half a century helping to ensure that are notes are not --
minorities are not denied the right to vote. the law requires states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing how they conduct elections. >> jon: like if you want a loan but have a history of bad credit you may need extra documentation or get a cosigner or if you want to move near a school and you are a sex offender, you have to thrawn by someone. [laughter] shelby county, alabama s leading the charge to strike what they consider to be an unfair provision of the voting rights act. they are hoping to become the jackie robinson's of people who historically disenfranchised people like jackie robinson. >> today shelby county alabama challenged the law at the supreme court. >> the america that elected barack obama is not the america of our parents and grandparents. >> jon: it's a completely different america.
we have cell phones now and things cost more than a nickle. coca-cola no longer has cocaine in it although -- you have to buy it separately. and in some communities you have to be careful you are not allowed to have 16 ounces of other. [ laughter ] shelby -- people, you know what you are? soda addicts. [ laughter ] shelby county al alabama is that since america elected a black man ipso facto we're free now of racism. although i guess corollary would be by their own reasoning if you didn't vote for him e oh, yeah, okay. [laughter] the point is shelby county alabama sees the voting rights act less as an effective bull
worth less effective and more like orthodonta, nice but no longer needed in needed in t. meaning it's straightened out the problem and you can remove it because it's straightened. you know what i'm saying. [ laughter ] when was the last time any state on the list of previously discriminating states tried to cook up voting shenanigans but were stopped. >> the justice department has rejected i.d. laws in texas and south carolina. >> jon: yeah but that was last year. it was like six taylor swift breakup songs ago. [laughter] the point isn't that the voting rights act is stopping discrimination before it happens, it's why can't we go back to the old model of discriminating first and stopping it later?
[laughter] as divisive as this issue is imagine the renewal of the voting rights act was in the senate. >> the senate voted to to renew the landmark voting rights act. the vote was 98-0. >> jon: is that even allowed in the senate anymore? you know how hard it is to get a unanimous vote in the senate? they couldn't pass ice cream appreciation day because senator crapo is lactose intoll rent and senator inhofe read it makes you game it's ben and mary not ben and jerry. all right. [ laughter ] that's the law that shelby county has a problem with, the effective popular one. the one both its senators alabama voted to renew. there's only one way to sell this, ladies and gentlemen. to the supremes!
>> go to the county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with. [ applause ] >> jon: perhaps -- no, no, wait, i think i have a reason, the element of surprise. [ laughter ] (bleep). [laughter] justice sotomayor appears to be upholding the statute. >> is it the government's position that citizens in the south are more racist than citizens in the north. >> jon: no, we've been to boston. [ laughter ] oh, yeah. and my grandparents house. [ laughter ] i would put personal northern racism up against anybody's
racism. it's not about personal prejudice it's about systemic discrimination and if the last election is anything to go by it should be expanding not contracting. >> pennsylvania lawmakers passed a voter i.d. law in march. >> wisconsin put in photo i.d. laws which critics say make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote. >> new voting restrictions in ohio. >> the republican secretary of state wanted to close early voting in the weekend leading up to the election. >> ohio republicans failed in their attempt to expand voting hours in republican areas than cutting them back in democratic areas. >> jon: what more does ohio have to do to get on the list of states? replace voting machines with shredders. so far it's been an intelligent respectful manner. maybe describing why they think the senate renewed it unanimously. scalia. give it a go. >> it's been written about when
a society adopts racial entitlements it's very difficult to get them out through the normal political congress. it's not the kind of question you leave to congress. they are going to lose votes if they do not enreenact the voting rights act. the name is wonderful. >> jon: congress is too frightened to challenge it based on at peel of its name. i'm assuming he would strike down the signers of decoration of independence under the same logic. i believe if john hancock signed the i wish our tea was cheaper. can you imagine what it must be like to work with that guy? we'll be right back with[cheers]
>> jon: here we go. [cheers and applause] welcome back. my guest tonight she's a former supreme court justice, was the first woman to serve on our supreme court. the new book is called out of order, stories from the history of the supreme court. please welcome back to the program justice sandra day o'connor. nice to see you. >> glad to be here. >> jon: the book is called "out of order." what was your purpose in this book, in putting this particular
book together? >> telling the stories about how the court works and giving people a glimpse into some of the things. >> jon: it's hard to imagine the pressure that a justice might feel when you are dealing with as we talked about earlier some of the biggest issues of our day. >> yes. >> jon: of racism and discrimination and the franchise. >> right. >> jon: does that weight -- do you feel that when you are deciding those cases? >> you certainly do because you really want to make the correct decision and bring some order out of our various statutes and constitutional provisions and the pris precedence of the court itself. it's hard sometimes. >> jon: you wrote brown versus board of education may be the most important decision. >> it was very important to us as a nation. >> jon: when they made that decision was it a difficult sphwhun do people feel they
overreached at that time? do you know? >> i don't know the feeling of the justices but it was a major decision. and many them are -- they effect us for years to come and you really want to get it properly decided. >> jon: do you have one you wanted back that you put out there and you were like, that was a rough one? >> if i did, i wouldn't say. >> jon: come on, justice! get in there. [cheers and applause] do you ever feel as some of these cases are coming up to this court oh, i'd like to jump in there and -- get you like an old ball player. >> i've not had that feeling. when they have a terribly difficult decision i usually say to myself thank goodness i don't have to be there deciding it. [ laughter ] >> jon: have you met all the new justices. >> yes, of course. >> jon: are there buffets? i don't know how the -- is there
a justices brunch? >> yes. it's common for all of the justices to get together and eat lunch together. physical they are there we go have -- if they are there we go have lunch in the justices dining room. send up from the cafeteria what we want to eat. >> jon: the cafeteria? >> yes we order from the cafeteria. >> jon: i feel like chinese. >> you can't do that you could have it sent in from the court but you wouldn't get it from the cafeteria. >> jon: how hard is it to get consensus on the order for lunch? >> no because you just -- [laughter] you are just ordering for yourself so it's pretty easy. >> jon: there was never any power in being the swing justice for -- >> lunch, no. >> jon: let's say if a heaves -- fajitas. >> no. >> jon: very interesting.
do you feel that these -- this voting rights act is hard for me to understand, you know, that it would even be challenged. it seems to have done so much good for the country, so much good for voters that have been disenfranchised. i'm having trouble wrapping my head around why it would be challenged in that regard. >> i don't think the whole concept was challenged. specific provisions challenged from time to time. >> jon: are they talking about that one that says the states have to ask permission to change any of our voting rules? >> well, that could be one. i don't happen to remember today. >> jon: do you follow the court at all? >> i do a little bit. >> jon: a little bit. >> i read all the decisions when they are handed down these days. >> jon: really? who do you find to be the best writer on the court. >> oh, my. i'm not going to tell you that opinion. >> jon: ah! why are the justices so tight
lipped. justice sotomayor was on. she wouldn't say because she has to face these guys. but you -- i feel like there's something very deep that people who serve on the court are protecting. >> i think we -- >> jon: there's a veil. >> i think we respect thence tuition. we served on it, we admire it and we don't want to so some damage. >> jon: really. >> we don't. >> jon: do you feel like he-of-we knew more about it would we respect it less or more? >> i think more. you do know a lot about it because we explain in detail every decision. >> jon: yeah, but that's reading. >> yeah, that's reading. >> jon: and it's very complicated. >> it is complicated. >> jon: it's extraordinarily complicated. here is what we'll do. we'll go to commercial and you can tell me the good things -- the things things about thoughtu feel are so vital to protect. that will help me understand why
you thought that might be. >> the supreme court is the one branch of government that has written explanations for everything it decides and z. that's pretty impressionive. no member of congress has to write an written explanation of everything. >> jon: such a good point. >> yes, not bad. >> jon: but it is. in the legislature -- things happen that seem inexplicable on the legislative side. >> right. >> jon: or the executive side and no one seems to know how it went down. it's backroom things that show up and they vote on it. >> but every member of the court has to have a written explanation. you can join someone else's opinion and say i agree with that and sign it but every justice has signed on to some explanation. it's impressive, i think. >> jon: it's very impressive. in some ways this, is going to
sound crazy, do the justices after doing that job for a while feel judged. >> i think do you feel judged. you feel that everything do you is under scrutiny. everybody in the country who has an interest in they can see it and talk about. >> jon: any idiot can make fun of it. >> make a joke of it or whatever. >> jon: it's not fair. >> hardly but that's the way it works. >> jon: if i see somebody doing it you can be sure i'll stop them as it goes. is there something to -- when you get to write the opinion and people sign on, is that something that is decided in a room they say grab this one. is it a division of labor or you really have a handle of it. >> the chief justice assigns someone to write each opinion. as the writer you hope to get other justices to join you. if they don't agree they can
dissent or write separately or say a degree with some of it but not all of it and write separately in the case. >> jon: was there anybody's writing on the court or in the past that you thought it's magnificent wordsmithing. i don't necessarily agree but i love the writing. >> who were some? >> holmes wasn't all bad. >> jon: oliver wendell holmes, i've heard good things. >> there were lots of wonderful writers in the court. >> jon: was the court formerly more colorful? do you think they've become more cautious in their opinions? do you think used to be more colorful. >> i guess with the ready availability of everything perhaps the justices are somewhat more cautious about what they do but not much. it's always been out there for public scrutiny. >> jon: any justice from the past that you think boy i would
have loved to serve with that justice? that would have been somebody -- >> we had a lot of good justices in the past. >> jon: anybody that you thought -- >> yes. >> jon: can i name them? rutledge? who is rutledge? >> doesn't come to mind but -- >> jon: never cared for rutledge. gotta watch that guy. frankfurter? >> at times. >> jon: did you ever go back to any of your opinions and think to yourself -- >> how can you have said that i might say. >> jon: at all. >> we'll see. >> jon: at the next justice brunch. >> lunch. >> jon: it's not a brunch, always a lunch. >> always a lunch. >> jon: this is what i like about the supreme court justices very, very specifically. will you please tell justice scalia from me, come see me on the program. [ laughter ] [cheers and applause]