OK, just one more update:

The very next day, Gross interviewed Supreme Court maven Jeffrey Toobin, who has done more work on the modern court, and knows more about each individual, than anyone I can think of.

Gross had obviously been disturbed by O'Connor's recalcitrance, and actually brought up her question to O'Connor where she cited Toobin, who had said O'Connor regretted her tie-breaking decision in Bush v. Gore.

O'Connor had evaded, of course, and said, "I don't know where he got that."

Toobin confirmed and elaborated, but didn't cite anything concrete. He emphasized that many things of the subsequent Bush administration were anathema to everything O'Connor stood for--Iraq, HSA, etc.

Toobin summed up:

"So, does she regret that decision? YOU BET."

It's a little strange because, as a legal scholar, Toobin's rationale has zilch to do with the legal issues on which O'Connor (presumably) based her decision.

Just an update, for those following such things:

O'Connor was _marginally_ more responsive on The Daily Show, as John Stewart worked his wonderfully nebbishy wiles with her.

AND he even "got her out on time." Was she really looking at her watch as the interview concluded??

A commenter on the video's page asked if it was a condition of the interview that Stewart not mention Bush v. Gore.

You would think an individual that is given so much power would sound more insightful and personable (or at the very least, smart)!!! Ugh!!

this woman is so crabby and defensive

Poor Terry. No matter how she tried to make the interview work, Justice O'Connor worked just as hard at making it not work.

I suspect this will go down as the second worst interview in Terry's mind.

She sure doesn't make me proud to be an American. What a cold-hearted person.

I guess her publisher didn't tell her that doing interviews is part of getting her book published!!!

I hate to pile on, but it really is obnoxious. One answer to a Terry Gross question: "I can't answer that. That's something YOU will have to do."

On gun legislation:

"If I've written on the subject, you'll find it. If not, let it go."

On Bush v. Gore:

"I don't want to discuss things that I've done."

Follow WNYC's link above for reviews of her book from Amazon's readers. Some quotes:

--superficial
--frivolous
--evasive
--a history that pretty much anybody with Wikipedia could have written

Oh no, just heard she's gonna be Jon's guest on the Daily Show tonight. Guess I get to go to sleep early.

Terry Gross (shocked at getting such a minimalist answer): Can you . . . uh . . . elaborate on that?

O'Connoer: No.

....

Gross (On a different question): Can you elaborate on that?

O'Connoer: No. I don't think I'll try.

Dang, I just listened to the Terry Gross interview too. She really does refuse to be even a bit personable or anectdotal in her answers. If that's any indication of what her book is like, count me out. She comes across as a boor.

Listening to Terry Gross interview her now. Same incredibly frustrating, fruitless interview.

Dear Leonard,
I wish you could of asked her how she feels about giving the country George Bush ( and everything that came with him) with her deciding vote on Gore vs Bush?
Any regrets,Sandra?
I hope nobody buys her book.

Praise is certainly due to Justice O'Connor for her filial piety in moving back to Arizona. Her contribution to the bench was indisputable. Praise also to Leonard for letting the retired Justice continue to be both juridical and reserved in responding to some good questions. That said, I learned nothing about the Court, its philosophical underpinnings, its place in the balance of powers or anything remarkable about any cases or procedures it applies from this interview. If the purpose of this interview was to hawk her book, she killed it by failing to understand the needs of the auditors and potential readers to be engaged by personality on the microphone. Her palpable relief in closing off the interview promptly at 12:30 wasn't just disappointing: it was arrogant. No sale.

Presidents have wide latitude in selecting justices. This interview proved it.

This is the new benchmark for being circumspect. When the questions are longer than the answers, you know the interview subject would rather be elsewhere.

Leonard, You asked her a very good question about the framers and the anti-democratic nature of establishing a body with lifetime tenure. The former justice won't give a straight answer on such a question. I'm glad that she retired! I'm really looking forward to Scalia's retirement.

Well, that was a soft interview... Lame.

Does anyone else think this is a terrible interview? Leonard is working hard but if she gives another one word answer or just agrees with what Leonard says...I'd cut the interview off.

Wow. Poor Lenny. This is one of the most surprisingly reticent interviewees he's ever had. It's shocking that this disingenuous, issue-avoiding, "everything's just fine, just as it's always meant to be" person was ever deciding our most important issues.

Can you ask Justice O'Connor how much common sense enters into decisions?

Leonard, please ask about the Court choosing the president in the Bush/Gore election.. what gave them the right?

I would love hear her take on activist judges/justices.

I applaud your iCivics initiative, Justice O'Connor. Do you help explain the legislative effect of court decisions, such that the claim 'courts can make policy' has some purchase?

How does Justice O'Connor feel about voting to make George W. Bush president?

I watched SDO on a special documentary on PBS for women's history month. She couldn't find a job after graduating Law School, women weren't being hired. Shocking to think discrimination was so rampant.

Rulings from the court intended to dismantle Reconstruction enshrined corporations as persons before the law: a construction completely foreign, nay horrifying to the founders without any doubt. All the initial rulings of the court on civil rights were designed to protect railroads and pro-white autocrats from organizations of freed slaves created to better the health and economic wellbeing of their fledgling communities. This became an oft-misquoted sound bite in the recent elections.

I would like to hear Justice O'Connor's opinion of this anti-constitutional activist position of the court held without exception and without fail since the Vanderbilt accurately summed up America's actual guiding principle: "What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"

Looking back, I wonder if Justice O'Connor has any second thoughts about Carhart. I imagine the court didn't feel it could do anything other than what it did.

I'd love to hear Justice O'Connor discuss how court members fantasize about and anticipate getting cases on issues about which they have strong feelings. I can just imagine a member thinking to him/herself "I can't wait to get a good case to reverse xyz."

Also, does she think amicus briefs have any impact on the court -- such as the briefs recently filed on the gay marriage cases?

thanks,

Jim Hyatt