>> let me begin with a few words about how i came to write the book and why. judge richard arnold was a rarity among modern federal judges, in part because of his reputation. he was a national figure, widely admired by supreme court justices and others, and because his admirers included both liberals and since conservatives. when president clinton considered arnell to replace justice blackmun on the supreme court, that support from both sides of the political spectrum was evidence. it may be that as president obama considers his replacements for the supreme court, that we may learn something from richard arnold. i also wrote the book, however because it is important for the public to have a broader understanding of the work of the lower federal courts. less than 1% of all federal court cases end up in the

supreme court. federal judges, like richard arnold, are effectively the final word on the many contentious social and political issues that end up in the federal courts. there are nearly 200 court of appeals judges. there are nearly 600 trial court judges. we really care about their work because it is often overshadowed by interest in the supreme court. what i tried to do in this book is to select from among the hundreds of opinions to illustrate arnold's legacy an important work of the federal courts. for this talk i focus on two areas of that legacy. one is school desegregation in little rock and the other is the debate over unpublished opinions. before i begin, i wanted to show you some images from the book that i think you might enjoy

seeing. this bota did not actually make it into the buck, but as the utes suggest there and it is probably a very young age. you heard earlier from clark that one of richard arnold's straights horridly said he was widely known for was his intelligence and he not only graduated first in his class at yale college but also graduated first in his class at harvard law school. this is a photograph from harvard law school. this is the low repute from 1960. there is richard arnold. there is a future justice of the supreme court, justice antonin scalia and as we know richard arnold graduated first in that class just barely edging out scalia for that particular honor. as part of his process, of education for richard arnold and his experiences, one of the turning point was his clerkship for justice william brennan.

this photograph shows justice william brennan and richard arnold and grinin's chambers in 1960. the occasion as the beginning of richard arnold's clerkship. he has also just become a member of the arkansas bar candy is the supreme court justice, william brennan, to swear him in. it was an interesting time to be in washington and at the supreme court's allitt relatively early era in what we know of is the warren court. some of you may remember these billboards that could be seen throughout the united states. in part is the reaction to brown versus board of education but also as the reaction to some of the other decisions of the warren court, and you can see the message there. szabo republic, richard arnold could see some of these billboards on his way to work for justice brennan in 1960. this was part of his background and his experience before he was

appointed to the federal bench on two occasions by jimmy carter. so, when he was at harvard law school in 1957, he found a violent up for at central high school in little rock both distressing and personally embarrassing. leni reach the eighth circuit more than two kit the-- the gates later arnold found himself the central figure in ongoing little rock school desegregation cases. after cooper versus aaron was decided in 58 the supreme court did not involve itself again in the little rock school cases. leading final resolution of numerous appeals exclusively to the eighth circuit. beginning in 1982, the most critical decisions concerning the segregation in little rock more ronald's signature. arnold's lefts opinion in the little rock school cases ridden a few months before his death in september 2004 signaled the close of nearly 50 years of

federal court involvement. by then the little rock schools have been under federal court supervision longer than any other school system in the nation. before richard ronald possum altmed, little rock schools have already been under federal court supervision for 25 years. when arnold joint the little rock school cases, desegregation, elimination of the use of government power to enforce segregation have largely been accomplished. the remaining intractable question was the extent to which integration could be achieved in the face of white, white and in an urban school district with the majority black student enrollment. cardinal 728 appeals of school desegregation issues and would write 16 opinions in those cases. other rate circuit judges seem to have deferred to arnold's huismann, not only because of his intellectual prowess but

perhaps also because he was viewed as a representative of arkansas on the court. he was closest to the ground, among the appellate judges, with an extensive background in arkansas politics. because of barnell's long and deep involvement the little rock school cases provide unique insight into the development and application of his judicial method and philosophy. although he was described as a powerful liberal leaning intellectual, it is not easy to characterize them as either and liberal or conservative in the little rock cases. there were three key decisions during the course of arnold's ten year that i want to mention. during his tenure the three important developments that i will mention shape the course of the litigation and the ultimate resolution for the little rock school district. the first is a 1985 decision, rejecting the district court's order of consolidation.

the second is in 1990 opinion rejecting the district court's modification of the settlement agreement and the final one, judge arnold left in these cases the firm the finding of status over the objection of the naacp legal defense and education fund. beginning with the consolidation issue, from 1959 until 1982 the little rock school district operated under success of the segregation plans. the details of which were frequently litigated. in 1982 however the little rock school district adopted a new-- file the lawsuit against to neighboring school district, the number zero russell district as well as the state of arkansas in the state board of education, asking the federal district court to order interdistrict relief. although all the districts that interested under desegregation decrees, the little rock school

district sought to force consolidation of the three districts as the only feasible resolution of the problem of segregation. this became the main strategy for desegregation of the little rock schools. by the close of the 1970's, the little rock area schools had come to resemble northern urban schools with a self-contained inner-city majority black school district surrounded by suburban school districts that were predominantly white. federal district judge, henry woods, ordered the consolidation of the three school districts. in 1985. but the eighth circuit reversed. the eighth circuit reversed that decision in which arnold supported that result and wrote a separate concurring opinion. arnold but that he approved completely of the court's decision not to order consolidation of the three school districts. although be noted that consolidation was within the

judicial power of the united states and that upon proper prove he would support it, he believed the extent of the interdistrict violations did not meet that standard. arnold mote, consolidation would mean destruction of three popular government unions of local government and substitution in their stead of one judicially supervise school district. sub13 delete consolidation tb "a pastored step that should be reserved for clear cases. instead arnold mode our task is judges is not to force the school districts to do what we think is right or socially good. but to apply the law to the facts and announce the results, whatever it may be. judge gerald heaney, another member of that court, which you did the majority decision to reverse the consolidation largely to arnold's influence.

two decades later judge caney told me, richard was not only a great judge but a great human being and we all had such respect for him that i think we gave an awful lot of weight to his views on the matter. it was his feeling that we really didn't have the precedent in our favor in terms of adopting judge wood's's do you that the school district should be consolidated. even at that might have been the most effective and in the long run, probably the best chance of having a long-term integrated effect but i agree with richard and i didn't do so unwillingly partially because i had such great respect for him as a person and as a judge. the most difficult issue for the court, according to haney was whether judge was was correct in concluding that the only way to achieve a reasonable degree of integration was to consolidate the schools. we all agreed at the time. we thought the judge would have gone further than he ought to

have gone. in retrospect i don't know whether we were right or whether we were wrong. obviously, it was very difficult to achieve any high degree of integration with the new little rock school district, so i think judge wood was very disappointed in our decision. we thought we were doing the right thing at the time. if every district would have been well served by consolidation, that might have been the district. the second point at which arnold's intervention was decisive involve the interdistrict settlement agreement. with consolidation ruled out by the eighth circuit, the three school districts negotiated a settlement among themselves and the state of arkansas. as part of this agreement the state legislature would authorize $109 million to fund desegregation programs, primarily in the little rock school district. this agreement would limit the state's of liability to a finite amount and dismiss it from the

case. judge henry woods rejected the proposed settlement. he did so on the ground that it did not go far enough to achieve desegregation in little rock school district and that the state's funding would prove inadequate to justify dismissing it from the case. judge woods then entered a modified consent degree to which all the parties to the litigation objected. among other things, the decree created the office of metropolitan supervisor with management powers over all three school districts. in his opinion from the eighth circuit judge arnold rejected the district courts mollification and held that judge woods should have approved the settlement plan. the party said not asked for this kind of super kitchen and indeed presented the settlement plan that did not require it. arnold dunce express different attitude toward the proposed settlement that had judge woods.

arnold wove, the most important fact about the present appeals is that they a rise out of settlements agreed to buy all the parties. the law strongly favors settlements. courts should hospitably receive them. this may be especially true in the present context of protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, and the lasting situation to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. the arkansas legislature and governor bill clinton provided funds without being ordered by any court to do so, arnold noted. he said "and act meant what the president so far as we know it in any other state was a significant step towards raising the legacy of lawlessness that had marked the state of arkansas's initial reaction to the constitutional requirement of equal, integrated education. with the settlement recognized by the courts, the party should

be able to devote more energy to education and less to litigation. following the eighth circuit's second major reversal, was removed himself from the school cases. wood said that the appeals court "had blocked any substantial progress towards a solution of the problems of the school districts less "was wrote in his refusal order, whatever the plan finally mandated by the court of appeals, those who take is there part of lay and substruction will have one. i am unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the court of appeals. perhaps the application of a fresh mind and the perspective of another judge can find hope in a situation which i perceive as hopeless. anice link the recusants order, judge wood also recalled the eighth circuit decision five years earlier to reverse his order of consolidation and here

is what judge woods wrote about that. i still believe that the solution which makes common sense for the children in this community is consolidation of the school district. i believe that had the court of appeals affirmed that decision in 1984 we would now be several years into a productive workable plan. henry polident richard arnold and joined a professional relationship and personal friendship for many years proceeding their involvement in the little rock school cases. arnold and woods worked closely together and governors successful campaign for the senate in 1974. later, the two appeared at a hearing together for confirmation to federal judgeships. and rawoods to the district court and richard arnold to the eighth district court of appeals. that is what this photograph shows along with arkansas senator david pryor and dale

bumpers. both were confirmed on the same day. there is no evidence however that the dispute over school desegregation disrupted their friendship. in his final written opinion, in little rock school cases, arnold efron bikram if unitary status to little rock school district by judge william r. wilson jr., the third district judge to preside over the interdistrict litigation begun in 1982. the district court determined that bill little rock school district has substantially complied in good faith with its obligations under the supplement agreement. son monitoring of student achievement would continue into the designation of partial unitary status but the practical effect was and then to the interdistrict litigation. it was an opinion of historic significance. with substantial court's supervision of little rock schools nearing an end it is likely that view will agree on what the litigation accomplished

or on the significance of arnold postural. considering only gmerek ratios little rock schools have experienced resegregation bryd goebel little rock school district has seen a complete reversal in its students make up since 1957. this phenomenon is consistent with developments in many other urban school districts. in arnold's years on eight circuit unlike the prominent stage in 1957 these cases never again centered specifically on central high school. arnold it seems was not even sure where in little rock the famous high school is located. on the occasion of a visit to little rock by justice sandra day o'connor, arnold has to there was anything in little rock she would like to see before he drove back to the airport. yes she said, i would like to see little rock central high school. arnold readily complied with o'connor's requestor in the

draki had to call his secretary for directions, a story justice o'connor later recounted with some amusement. a second legacy i would like to mention has to do with the topic of open courts and the debate over unpublished opinions for the one theme of arnold's on the bench with his concern for transparency and public accountability in the judiciary. he knew that most of the work of federal courts a card out of the press spotlight and it was this work he said that affects the public more than they know. arnold believe that judges like other government officials where public servants who work for the people. he understood and said publicly that the ongoing operation of the federal courts was dependent upon the consent of the government. one practice babic arnold in particular. federal courts of appeal issue over 80% of their decisions and what they term the unpublished

form. an opinion bearing the notation, not for publication, means that the court has not authorized it for official publication in the federal report. often, these opinions are unsigned per curium and relatively short, a firm. for the rest, these opinions contain extensive recitation of facts or analysis of the applicable law. unpublished is a misnomer, although designated not for publication these opinions have long been readily available from the court itself or through electronic databases for a fee. an opinion sent for official publication by contrast would appear in the federal reporter and be available in libraries. officially published opinions typically contain extensive presentation of the facts of the case and apply this tax to the

usually more extensive evaluation of the relevant law. defenders of the practice, almost all of them federal appellate judges, say it is necessary because the federal judiciary could otherwise not cope with the caseload. unpublished, nonprecendential opinions are reserved for cases in which the judges agreed that no new issues are presented. both the effects of the case to be decided as well as the law applicable to wit are retained in the court's experience. the decisions are merely uncontroversial, applications of a stack of legal doctrine that do not make new law. dealing with such cases in an abbreviated opinion that does not former president for future cases the argument goes frees judges to devote more time to matters of greater legal urgency. most opinions designated not for publication are unanimous but one study revealed that 24% of

unpublished decisions issued by appeals courts are not only not unanimous but also that various judges disagree for months that one right to dissenting opinion. the federal courts of appeal increase their use of this practice in the closing decades of the 20th century from 37% of all cases decided in 1977 to just over 80% by 2000. the number of such unpublished decisions accounts today for an astounding proportion of all cases decided by a federal appeals courts, four out of every five appeals. arnold or a the increasing use of unpublished opinion samantha du jour sheri could avoid responsibility for outcomes that he was not alone in his concern. one of the arnold's objections was that such abbreviated decisions ran the risk of not fully representing the decision process or properly explaining

to the losing party why he or she had lost the case. arnold had well-known views about how all the opinion should be written. most importantly he believe that kenyan should be written for the losing side of the case so that the person, not the lawyer, could understand the reasons for losing. i think about litigants a lot, arnold one said. the losing litigants are the people will need to understand that they have been heard, that they have reasoning creature of some kind has evaluated their argument and come to some sort of the sensible conclusion about it. they will like it, they won't enjoy losing but i hope they will have a sense that they have been heard. and so it is important how things are written. i worry that sometimes their opinions are not living up to that standard. but what arnold really objected to us the rule pollinic most federal courts of appeal including the eighth circuit, preventing hardees from citing

unpublished opinion. pete circuit roe red, unpublished opinions are not president and parties generally should not cite them. in other words, in the opinion not officially published was unusable beyond that individual case. from nearly the moment arnold joined eight circuit in 1980, he sought to change the rule on non-presidential opinions. beginning in 1983, arnold raised the issue before the eighth circuit judges by way of a motion to change the rule in order to allow the parties to cite to such opinions. for the next ten years as he would say his motions never received a second. as he wrote to a fellow judge, there is absolutely no justification for unpublished opinions unless we abolish the rule that they cannot be cited as precedent. aid is not so much a concern to me whether they are mailed to

west, a legal publisher, as whether they are available to the bar and the public to remind the courts of what they have done in the past. as i have said in public several times, the breault of our courts on the subject is an abomination. it is fairly strong language from richard arnold to use the word abomination. arnold seems to have been looking for a case to make precisely this point and in the early months of 2000 he founded. it was a small tax case. did not involve arnold's great cause, the bill of rights and in fact it was later dismissed as moot when the government agreed to refund the amount a taxpayer had claimed she had overpaid, about $6,000. harvard law professor who had been a classmate of arnold's at both e.l. college and harvard law school turned this case arnold's single boldest stroke

of constitutional interpretation, reminiscent of john marshall, the great chief justice of the supreme court. the case itself was one of many routine tax their lawsuits for a relatively small amount of money. and stop sued the internal revenue service in district court because the irs refused to consider claim for tax refund. the irs received acclaim one day after the three-year clean period expired. she had mailed the refund requests before the end of the claim period. the irs took the position that the date of receipt by the irs and not the date of mailing determined whether the claim would be considered. a federal district court agreed with the irs but eight years earlier in an unpublished ruling in another case in eight circuit panel had held in favor of the irs on this precise question. it was the only case in the eighth circuit to have considered it.

the supreme court had not addressed the issue, an illustration of the numerous questions of law on which lower federal courts can and do the verge without supreme court oversight. the earlier case was an unpublished opinion. the problem judge arnold faced was that the eighth circuit follow the practice that no panel of three judges could overrule a prior case. if the president were to be overruled, that action required the full eighth circuit sitting. instead, arnold ruled in favor of the irs because he said the accord was bound to follow the earlier case even though it was unpublished indeed circuit rules specified that it was not precedent, but arnold needed the justification to disregard his courts rule on non-presidential opinion. he resolve the problem by holding that the eighth circuit ruled insofar is it would allow was to avoid the presidential

effect of our prior decisions, purports to expand the judicial power beyond the bounds of article iii and is therefore unconstitutional. arnold's opinion quickly said of the national debate. academics, judges, lawyers, soon filled the pages of legal publications with arguments for and against arnold's rolling and many called for courts to change the restrictions on citation. their reaction to arnold's bold step engendered such national debate that it threatened to overshadow arnold's landmark decisions in the memory of the legal community. but it did not remain low within the eight circuit. it was vacated as moot because the irs agreed to pay the claim. richard arnold was vindicated in 2006 when the supreme court mandated a rule change for all federal federal courts requiring that they require unpublished

opinions. although all unpublished opinions issued after january 1, 2007 may now be cited, the rule does not take any position as to whether in the unpublished decision has precedential value. tony morrow of the legal times attributed the new rule largely to arnold. the the prior-- propriety of an essentially secret judicial process has been debated for years the catalyst for change was judge richard arnold's opinion in anice does off. arnold died in 2004, three years before the supreme court rule went into effect but he knew the debate had continued. the department justice and the u.s. judicial conference advisory committee had recommended in 2003 the enactment of the world to allow lawyers to cite them published opinions in all appeals courts. the house judiciary committee held oversight hearings on the question and in the interim several circuits modified their

own rules. as these developments were underway, the national law journal in college richard arnold's opinion hat quote pushed the judiciary toward a rule change. an article arnold carefully preserved in a scrapbook. richard arnold frequently spoken by about how he believed judges should behave and what was important for judges to uphold high standards. arnold said the great objects in the administration of justice should be to give public satisfaction. how? in addition to doing right, one should also strive to appear to be doing right, to do right in such a way as to command the public's respect. arnold was an unusually open judge in other ways. most revealing of arnold's characters were his responses to letters he received from members of the public who wrote to him. in one example, an elderly south

dakota couple wrote to arnold as chief judge, concerning their sons imprisonment. they did not have a lawyer and did not know how to raise their sons claims before a federal court. arnold brought back patiently explaining the process and i would like to read a short excerpt from that letter. i have reddick considered your letter. as understand your claim is that your son was convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison term as a result of the illegal acts of south dakota police and prosecutors. further, he claimed the south dakota supreme court has the early misrepresented the law and addressing your son's challenge to his conviction and sentence. i have no authority to investigate state officials or to review the merits of the south dakota supreme court's decisions. the proper remedy, when searson has exhausted his avenues of appeal in state court system, is to file habeas petition in federal court.

i hope this information will be of assistance to you. few judges would go to such lengths to inform a member of the public of the complicated processes of habeas jurisdiction. in another example arnold responded to a letter about a criminal case that was still on appeal within the arkansas state courts. he understood most non-lawyers had difficulty understanding when and how federal courts might review state criminal convictions. so we took the time to explain it. and he wrote, the case to refer to is in the state courts. my court, which is a federal court, has only limited authority to review state court convictions and we cannot exercise even that authority until the conviction becomes final in the state courts. if the arkansas supreme court affirms the conviction that it is possible for the defendant to file a petition for habeas corpus and a federal district court. assuming certain procedural requirements are met, the

federal courts will then make you any federal constitutional issue raised with respect to the conviction. that is about all i can properly say at this point. i am sorry this letter is not more helpful. it is not possible to summarize a judicial career like richard arnold's in one hour or even in one book, as my publisher reminded me when they ask me to cut one-third of the manuscript for the final product that you see, but it is important to strive for a broader public understanding of the work of the federal judiciary and most of this work is done outside of the spot light of the supreme court, where richard arnold spent his career. i would be happy to answer any questions and engage in further discussion. [applause]

>> questions for professor bryce. yes sir, she will get you the mic. >> thank you professor prize for speaking to us and i have a question for you may be on a more personal level. if you have a young law student coming in that seeks your advice and counsel as they prepare to enter their legal career, what is the best advice he would give to a person now? >> i think the best advice i would give is the best advice i received as i was getting ready to graduate from law school, and that is try to pursue a judicial clerkship before you begin the process of representing clients, so whether you are working for circuit courts, state court judge, a federal judge, that was for me a formative experience. obviously it resulted in an admiration of someone's career that i ended up writing about but i think when i talked to

other law students who have some graduated and pursue the same i think they agree, it gives you an opportunity to see for the most part in a very inspiring way how fiduciary works both federal and state, and before you have the burden of representing a client, when it clint is relying upon your skills for their livelihood. >> questions? >> thank you. thank you. the country is contemplating that we will have a new judge on the supreme court. the person who will nominate that person is an african-american, who is highly respected for his constitutional astuteness, skills and performance in interpreting the constitution of the united states. do you feel that the nomination

of a person who has taught it, lift it, experience it, a denomination that they nominate for compilation by the senate will be measured by the scholarly of the nominee, the temperament of the nominee, because of who nominated them and that court that that person will serve on will be serving at a time when law decisions are global, primarily related to human rights rather than civil rights and the continental united states. >> thank you. the question is, the supreme court watchers which is to say that we have, it is a historic presidency and i think we can expect from that or the expectations are high for a historic supreme court nomination. i should say by the way, along

with my cohort price marshall, judge marshall is here, we are in class. we went to harvard law school and/or third year students when the new president of the united states was a first-year student. at least i didn't know him when we were there but it is a little bit sobering to say that one of the younger newtons of ground is now president of the united states. i have been thinking quite a bit about judicial appointments and i certainly can't predict anything president obama would do. you are absolutely right to say that he himself is very learned in the lot and is thought deeply about these issues and about justice issues. and in some ways president clinton was in a similar position. he had been a law professor, was trained a lot and also devoted, which is very hands-on in terms of selecting his judicial nominees, so it will be very interesting to watch the process

unfold. >> questions? let me ask a question that i think everybody would like to hear your thoughts on. which is, your insight into president clinton's consideration of judge arnold to the supreme court and any thoughts about that the nomination process, why and why not? >> as i write in the book, this is primarily richard arnold chance on the supreme court was for justice harry blackmun's seed which was opened in 1994 and as you know, or will recall, from what president clinton himself said, richard arnold was very much in contention for that seat. in fact, when the decision was made and president clinton had a press conference announcing who it was going to be and that it was going to be stephen breyer, one of the first things he said

was i wanted to nominate richard arnold but they could not do so because of his health. i always tell the little bad for stephen pirate that point, that that is what preceded it but it certainly doesn't take anything away from stephen breyer's career to reflect on what arnold in the supreme court might have looked like. i think in terms of the process, i have always taken president clinton's words at face value, which is that the reason he didn't appoint him was because of his health and at that point the president had received a letter from a position that had been asked to evaluate arnold's prognosis. it was a very parsley phrase letter in a sense, and that physician would later say that it had been too conservative and to heart-- two parsley phrase but nonetheless it was that the point that i anders said president clinton had made his

decision and his criteria according to his criteria, then maybe that decision was, could be viewed as a correct one which is to say, he said in his book,, appointed young persons who would have a long lifespan. i did not have that promising a health prognosis about richard arnold and instead he appointed stephen breyer. he also said that he hoped he could consider, that's richard arnold could be treated for that particular episode in be considered for another opening on the supreme court. another opening never came during clinton's terms that we go back to the criteria where clinton is looking at his legacy in terms of beyond his presidency, the supreme court nominees were ruth bader ginsburg, stephen bair, looking beyond that legacy when richard

arnold died in 2004, his replacement would have been by a republican president and not by a democratic president where as stephen fire is still there, so if judged by that criteria, than that is one way to do it but i have also really appreciated paula greenberg's sentiments that he stated over the years about what ten years or even one year of richard arnold on the supreme court could have done for the country. >> one final and then i will let you go. could you speculate on what might it then the supreme court richard arnold on the court, what it might it been like? >> i am hesitant, even after working on this book for five years in reading opinion, i am hesitant to be in a position to suggest how richard arnold might

have voted on specific issues that came up in the supreme court but i would say this. i think one difference is that richard ronald had such a degree of respect from current members of the supreme court from both wings if you do them from polar opposite wings. he had respect on both sides. he was known as a very collegial colleague, working together so i think one difference we might have seen over ten years is bridging the gap, bringing some of the sides together, keeping the rhetoric perhaps at a lower level. i certainly think that he immensely regarded antonin scalia, and scalia felt the same way about richard arnold so it is interesting to speculate with that kind of exchange would have looked like over the years with two real intellectual giants coming from different sides of the political spectrum.

>> let's thanks polly price for being with us. [applause] signed copies of the but, "judge richard s. arnold," the legacy of justice on the federal bench. i hope he will buy the book and have polisign it. thank you for being with us. steve polly price is an associate dean at emory issues a graduate of harvard law school in new once a clerk for judge richard arnold on the eighth circuit of appeals. for merk information go to a lot dodd emory..edu. >> the phenomenon of facebook, bestselling author bin mazza rick on the success of the social networking site and how would tort to best friends apart. after words, portf c-span2's booktv we can.

>> dan balz, washington post national political correspondent and pulitzer prize winner haynes johnson review the 2008 presidential election. politics and prose in washington d.c. hosted this event. it is about an hour. >> in i want to welcome dan balz and haynes johnson, former colleagues at "the washington post" and they both have long careers in journalism. dan has served as the post national editor, political editor and white house correspondent and he has won several prominent awards for his coverage of politics of the presidency. haynes has served as the national correspondent, and it was during that time that he won the pulitzer prize for his coverage of the civil-rights crisis in selma. he has been a columnist for "the

washington post" and he has been assistant managing editor of the's, until he left journalism to join the academic world. he is now, holds in night chair in journalism at the university of maryland and he has had also academic appointments at a number of other universities, including princeton, berkley and duke. i don't know how many of you watch "meet the press" on sunday, when dan balz and haynes johnson rolled up their new book. at ever since then, i don't think there is then to many moments during a 24-hour period where they have not been on t d or radio. granted some of it is recorded, since then. i thought that they must be so exhausted that they