columns which kind of piloted but some will. and donovan -- i mean, roosevelt and kurds this tension between the two. every now and then he would yankton of this chain back. he that the army general do something that would enrage donovan. he had a very complicated relationship. again, they were from opposite parties. roosevelts senior staff was decidedly worried about what they thought was the republican cast to the oss. all the best and the brightest he brought in by the best and brightest from the republican party. you had henry stimson, frank knox, and donovan as head of intelligence service. a lot of white house aides or thinking to themselves, what are we doing?

chino, donovan wanted to be president of the united states. frank knox had ran for president. so the two men, you know, roosevelt liked donovan. .. twitter.com/booktv. >> coming up, lawrence goldstone recount supreme court's

announcement of the civil rights act of 1983. is deemed the act unconstitutional and by doing so needed the protection of the fourteenth amendment. >> before we get to the serpentine dealings of the supreme court. many begin with an assertion. they will discover some wonderful formula to explain human behavior. and a field in which truth is quantifiable seems to have more help than one in which basic concepts will be elusive. you can never prove categorically that you are right. i remember when i was in

graduate school aid debate raged fiercely. may be social science could be value free. could we take the human value out. and subjective removing sort of in a laboratory. could a historian create the equivalent of newton's laws of motion. and this argument seems to have receded. academia talked itself out. he was not really a scientist at all but throughout a hypothesis which they hopefully had supported and which other social scientists could then hurled

bricks that. what does this have to do with us. the people who did not get the message. it is most definitely a social and natural science. this is square in the center of the american constitution. constitutional interpretation is not objective at all. it could easily be objectively discerned by the document itself. it is a fairly understood

meaning of those words. and easily understood. the constitution has every justice knows is notoriously and sometimes deliberately vague. for example in article i section viii which grants explicit powers to congress the final clause reads to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution foregoing powers and all other powers, and governments of the united states, or any department or officer thereof. this is a potent sentence and very wide ranging. midway through the constitutional convention and committee of details, chaired by f slaveholder maine--named john rutherford the detail which i discussed in depth in a previous bluff, starck bargain, five men meeting in secret charged with

drafting prototype constitution. enormous powers of this committee realize. whatever they produce sets the agenda and boundaries for debate. anything included in the prototype takes a concerted effort to remove. and something not in the prototype. the state house was closed, windows were barred and doors were barred and were in a small room. many wore heavy clothes. it smelled and by august where the committee details report came out a lot of these people began to dislike each other. article i section viii called the sweeping claus. it was left intentionally

amorphous. the federalist party which was in power could enact whatever legislation was required to run the country. how can there possibly be a fairly understood meaning people quantifiable meaning of necessary and proper, a phrase which was inserted into the constitution to have no quantifiable -- at the center of many challenges to the health care law. you're doing wonderfully. thank you. common sense has demonstrated there is no one in mutable interpretation of the constitution.

they have succeeded in not only setting the tone of jurisprudence but also enabling conservative congressmen and talk-show host and the tea party movement to the document's true meaning. any justice who admits basing decision on analysis or even worse apply the broad notion of fundamental justice is derided, has taken on in meaning that is just this side of confidence. but who is really the activist? the justice who admits language itself is more subjective than the chemical makeup of an amino acid or one who assists that he or she can indisputably say what an imprecise phrase means. i find this move to certainty and often smug certainty to be

extremely unsettling. the stake is extremely high. to get a sense what happens when a objectivity runs riot, we need only look back a little bit of history and by happy coincidence come in my book. since seen setting is necessary. in the wake of the civil war the nation enacted three constitutional amendment. the thirteenth abolished slavery enforcing guarantee american citizens due process and a 15 guaranteed the right to vote would not be infringed. despite the speed with which these were adopted they were not particularly popular. white americans in the north as well as the south and not too keenan on sharing sovereignty with two million newly freed slaves.

allowing african-americans to vote. radical republicans is not my phrase. these radical republicans, not like today's version. these radical republicans want to expand the role of government significantly hand use its forces, equality under the law which they believe to be a national moral imperative. as i said these men were not certain about granting the vote to a population of largely illiterate socially and sophisticated slaves. but a constitutional work made it necessary. the original constitution, three fifth of the slaves were accounted for apportionment. after the thirteenth amendment there were no more slaves. so these four million black americans count in full toy

portion of congress and if only whites could vote in the south which occurred in the 89s and the 11 confederate states were allowed back into the union which everyone assumed they would be. that is a substantial question whether or not they left. there would be more congress men in the south by virtue of this additional two fifth of the black population. white southerners in other words would be granted a larger voice in congress at the electoral college. in the years afterward the nation's electorate to two million voters because only males could vote. these did not apply to women or female suffrage was not a glimmer yet. since putting something on paper is hardly the same as making it

a reality, congress passed a series of laws. a testy civil-rights act of 1866 which gave all americans regardless of color ranking of contract among other things, two reconstruction acts and three enforcement act. these provide guarantees in the three amendments. and also established five military districts in the south. tennessee rejoined the union by ratifying the fourteenth amendment. and each controlled by a general. and sent the army in to these districts to make sure the law was adhered to. there are some stunning changes in the south not the least of which was a burgeoning of black voters and black office voters.

many on the local level or state level and even the national level. there was a time when mississippi senators were african-american. resentment of the occupation was ferocious end resulted in a concerted effort supporting the democratic party which proposed these measures. and the creation of a number of terrorist groups and the number of others to -- to get a sense of what it was like when an occupying army moves in, a resentful population and attempts to impose its own ideas of democracy on that population and take people who are out of power and put them in power and take the people in tower and kicked them out of power, think iraq.

the supreme court is charged with enforcing these amendments for ensuring -- the court has been buffeted by a good deal of political pressure. radical republicans made it more or less clear that adverse rulings said the reconstruction acts were not constitutional which they might not have been or paper money which had been issued during the war was not constitutional, which it may not have been. and severe consequences. they danced around the issue and denied jurisdiction in some cases, they waffle and in some cases -- by the 1870s the case for reconstruction, and things really began to heat up. democrats made huge gains in the 1874 congressional elections mostly because of the resentment of reconstruction in the north.

in the lame-duck congress radicals forced for a civil-rights act which was the most sweeping legislation of its time. that law provided all persons in the jurisdiction of the united states should be entitled to full equal in london accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges on land or water, theaters and other places of public amusement subject to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to citizens of every race and, regardless of any previous condition of servitude. immediately a human cry went up profanation. all across the nation. on editorial pages including the new york times which said in a language similar to what we hear today that the law has put us back in the art of governing men

for 200 years. startling proof how far and fast we're wandering from the principle of 1787 once so loudly extolled and so fondly cherished. the civil-rights act was denounced in speeches, by politicians and even in churches and where was the remedy? has to do with the health care law, in the courts. and just like the health care law the editorial writers beg the supreme court to overturn a civil-rights act of 1875 in the name of liberty. in the meantime the lost data on the books. although some businesses closed down they reopened later. others gave in. most businesses and most institutions simply ignored the law. black americans were denied

decent theaters and public conveyances and refused at restaurants in both north and south and sometimes been ejected violently. in number of african-american plaintiffs filed complaints and lawsuits to try to gain equal access. the complaint for largely ignored because the lawsuit lane which. prosecutors were not particularly women to press a case where everyone thought the court would rule and they would be overturned and didn't want to do it anyway and legal authorities were unwilling to take up the cause of african-americans and try to imposed the rules on white business owners. the court, everyone assumed would take up this action relatively quickly, drag its feet. they had any number of actions in which they could have used to test the law but none made it to the calendar in 1883.

following year, 1876, after a tightly contested election between rutherford b. hayes and samuel tilden and secretly contest which historians almost universally agree tilden's won and the electoral college went to hays when by one vote, 20 disputed electoral delegates and, 19 for a three state in the deep south were put in his column. the full story of this event is wonderful and involved secret negotiations and backroom deals and finally a commission which was a 15 person commission. seven republicans and seven democrats and one independent person to choose the president. the independent person was initially a supreme court justice, david davis who everybody remarkably agreed was amazingly impartial. but the democrats offered davis

the senate seat and he took it. to replace davis, another supreme court justice was chosen. amen named joseph bradley. the only man in american history to be empowered to choose a president by himself. and he chose hay is. the reaction to that was so severe that there were widespread fears of a second civil war. uncompromising, the democrats agreed to withdraw their objections to hays's election if he agreed to pull the army out of the south which he agreed to do. the public was none too pleased with all of this. and haynes became referred to as mother fraud or your fraudulent

see. the justices even though they avoid taking the civil-rights act head on they began to chip away at the foundation of the law which is fourteenth amendment. i don't have time to discuss all the cases but i will mention a few. weeks after hayes was in office the court issued a ruling of united states versus quoteshanks which stemmed from an incident on easter sunday, april 14, 1873, when 250 armed white men on horseback, some of the six pound cannon converged on the court house to see the grand parish of central louisiana. and inaccessible town. in and around the courthouse where 150 armed black men awaiting the invasion behind barricades they had thrown up and doug a ditch in front of.

many of the black men were duly appointed members of louisiana militia and white men were members of the klan or other white terrorist groups. the confrontation was precipitated by a gubernatorial election in which the republican who with a carpetbagger and the democrat who was a decorated confederate civil war veteran had claimed victory. each of them held a victory party and there was such widespread fraud in the election that no one could be sure who won. so the issue was sent to the courts which was controlled by republicans and i suppose you can guess who was appointed governor. in any event after the white men deceive the white house whether they offered terms of surrender or to negotiate is unknown although probably not. once the shooting started it was clear that the militia was completely outgunned and

outnumbered so they gave up. after their weapons had been confiscated the white invaders proceeded to slaughter their captives. as many as 100 black men were shot, stabbed or drowned. some after they tried to run to the woods to safety. afterward that they claim the blacks of gunfire first and a captain had been killed but that seems extremely unlikely since their weapons have already been taken from them before the captain was gunned down. the affair was dubbed either the colfax massacre or the colfax riot depending on the political point of view of the speaker. if nothing else it reminded everybody what would happen if the army was pulled out of the south. even under a republican governor, might not pursue this case with complete energy. the government moved to have the case removed to federal court. 100 invaders were tried and

three were convicted. they were not tried for murder which was a state crime but they average charged with under the enforcement act of 1870 which applied criminal penalties to wide range of violations of the fourteenth amendment, favor charged with the private black men with a constitutional right of free assembly and there were significant second amendment implications that we won't go into. the three men who were convicted eventually appealed and it reached the supreme court. the opinion in the united states was written by chief justice morrison wait. was his first major case. does this president grant's third option after the previous chief justice and he was considered sufficiently in mediocrity that the magazine

that he was firmly in the first rank of second rank lawyers. in his opinion, by the way bradley, who was the president, heard the case in circuit court which will come in in a bit. week asserted that the fourteenth amendment prohibition dark ltd. and certainly does not extend of the bill of rights to the state specifically in the right of assembly. that because the amendment reads nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process or deny any person equal protection of the law the amendment did not apply only to state action and did not apply to private individuals who committed ordinary crimes. ordinary crimes were taken from bradley in the circuit court. regulating ordinary crimes was reserved for the state governments by the tenth amendment which reads the powers

not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by the states are reserved for the states respectively tour to the people. this conflict between the tenth amendment, the states rights amendment and the fourteenth amendment is key to the entire period. the tenth amendment at its scope and limitations and conflict with other amendments his also key to everything happening in court day. according to wait because the fourteenth amendment cannot apply the bill of rights the enforcement act specifically of 1870, exceeded constitutional authority. if the prosecutor could demonstrate, and life, liberty or property the convictions might stand. of boards of 100 black

men:murdered by whites and the white stated their intent, he's on no proof that race had anything to do with. this was not and racially motivated crime. not one single person spend one day in jail. and access to juries. it is an interesting case. an african-american male named taylor in west virginia, he killed his wife in a fit of jealous rage. a fact he didn't deny. moreover he claimed to be justified in the act since she

had been almost obsessively unfaithful sleeping only with a multitude of other men bringing shame and then her embarrassment upon her husband. and authorities found persuasive. they put them in jail and state circuit court, went to trial. their claim incredibly, anybody who does appellates work should listen to this, they included the assertion that their client had been entitled to kill his wife. the only reason he was convicted the lawyers maintain was that west virginia whites were so big -- bigoted that a fair trial was impossible. as part of this latter point,

the death by statute, only eligible. this ran counter to section iv of the civil-rights act. the appeal reached thef1 o of the civil-rights act. the appeal reached the united states supreme court by which time thankfully it had been reduced to a question of statutory exclusion of african-americans with juries. and they were invited to a white man anything 77. the jury was again all white and they were not chosen by statute. the cases came down one after another. the defendant had indeed been discriminated against because the statutory prohibition on black jurors. you cannot have a statute that

only white people can serve on a jury. in the virginia case the conviction was civheld. of virginia law didn't expensive a good -- specifically exclude african-americans and although every contrivance might have brought to bear, this had nothing to do with the court. and the rights had not been violated. this in the ludicrous message. all the government needs to is an ounce they continue to discriminate or put in statutes. as long as it wasn't on the paper, the requirements would be met. in 1882, the united states versus harris which is referred as the ku klux klan case, gro c of 20 men including a farmer named harris broke in or were let into a jail where four black

defendants, vetoed them, one of them died. 19 companions were charged under federal law for violating the enforcement act which is referred to as ao cf1 o asu klux klan law which for bad two or more persons from going in the skies on public highway to deprive anyone of people right under the law. the roadmap is established. on the grounds that the federal government had no right to legislate the activities of private persons. the right to legislate against individual action was reserved for the state's. if the states chose not to

pursue those who burned and murdered fellow citizens federal government had no choice but to stand by and watch. and the fellow klansmen winfrey. these decisions were not rendered by the same nine people, and justices. most of the appointments which are numerous did little to change the makeup of the court or change its direction, provide nouch distinction. the most prominent occurred in

187nvi a t was a payback, to payback appointment. kentucky was expected to go to the democrats which pays a one by one vote he lost the election. and arlen who was a slaveholder himself and the son of slaveholders single-handedly moved around the state and brought the state into haze that column. how widely ignored this law was. they agreed to hear the case in 1880 but didn't put them on the calendar until 1883.

during the delay other african-american plaintiffs couldn't bring their case to court because once circuit courts and district courts knew that the court would hear those cases they essentially shut down. the decision in the civil rights case was an anti climax. after all the decisions had come before it was clear what the justices would do and the vote was 8-1. writing the opinion for the majority was justice joseph bradley who seemed to make a career of being in the right place at the right time. read the rule that congress had overstepped its mandate by attempting to regulate not just the action of the state but individual americans. the key portion of this was not -- it didn't surprise anybody. what came after when bradley could not resist his social views. seemingly to scold people who would attempt to adjudicate

equal rights bradley wrote when a man emerged from slavery and by the aid of beneficial legislation has shaken off the inseparable contaminants of the state there must be some stage of his elevation when he takes the reins of mere citizen and ceases to be a special favorite of the law. when his rights as a citizen or a man are to be protected in ordinary mode by which other men's rights are protected. in other words he was saying stop complaining. this cutting myopia in a country where black americans were regularly been, regularly merited, was challenged by only one man, a former slave holder. harlan wrote i cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendment of the constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle

and ingenious verbal criticism. then harlan quoted the sixteenth century legal first, this is a phrase all of us should remember. is not words but the internal sense that makes the law. the letter of the law is the body. the sense and reason. and harlan took almost an assertion of african-american rights, special favorites. it is scarcely just to say it has been a special favor of the law. the nation through congress sought to accomplish in restaurants do that is what had already been done. every state of the union to secure and protect rights belonging to them as free men and citizens, nothing more. harmon predicted that as a result of the decision of the civil-rights case decision we

would not have african-americans taking the place of ordinary citizens but a decent and discrimination. it was denied by corporations and individuals rights fundamental in freedom and citizenship. at from time it may be some other race might fall under race discrimination. if a constitutional amendment was a forced according to the intent with which they were adopted there cannot be in this republic any class of human beings in practical objection to another class. as harmon predicted the southern states which were now back in control of virtually every state government by virtue of gain for the democratic party they took to him. it started with mississippi in 1890 and by 1905 every southern state had drafted a new constitution, each of which made no mention of its intention to

discriminate but inserted literacy clauses for property qualifications or grandfather clauses that would do the same thing. james cave art and was mississippi senator who joined the delegates. the language is his. there's no use to lie about the matter. mississippi's constitutional convention of 89 u.s. held for no other purpose than to eliminate the major from politics. let the world know what is. this was a public pronouncement. this was not at a dinner party. and yet the court still refused to see that the practical impact of their decisions were creating an atmosphere by which these kind of constitution could be passed in these kinds of statements could be made with

impunity. and the results were everything white governments could hope for. black people were completely disenfranchised by the new constitution. louisiana passed the new constitution in 1898 and kept good records of their voters. on january 1st, 1897, the number of black voters in louisiana was 130,000. by 1900, two years after this new constitution was ratified the number of black voters was 5,000. in every one of these cases what the court was essentially doing was ruling that the tenth amendment from the equal protection or citizenship guarantees or the due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. it turns out that the fourteenth amendment was not just forbid. wants the right to black

americans have been disposed of, the court took up the cause of a new or oppressed class in america. corp.. this is completely true. in a series of rulings in the late 1880s and on the court struck down attempts to regulate commerce without any intention to discriminate. what they set up for black americans was not for corporations. how can a corporation be granted fourteenth amendment rights? it can. in order to do it you just make a person. in santa clara county versus of and pacific railroad co. chief justice weight asserted half the court does not have the provision of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution which forbids the state to deny any person the equal protection

of the laws applied to these corporations. we are all of the opinion that it does. what we had was you couldn't set rates, you couldn't tax. you couldn't -- minnesota tried -- they were being gouged on milk. when they transported milk. all of these were struck down on the fourteenth amendment grounds. in 896 it all came together. the rights of human need had been disposed of and the rights of inanimate objects had been upheld. the conference was the famous case plessey versus ferguson. as most of gino is a separate but equal decision. it was a test case against the separate car law in louisiana which stipulated that blacks and whites to not -- cannot ride in the same railroad car but they

would have equal accommodation. the accommodation is whites would ride in first-class cars towards the back of the train with padded cushions and relatively good accommodation. the blacks would ride in the car just behind the locomotive which was constantly filled with smoke with broken seat, broken windows and never cleaned. this was the equal accommodations. in plessey versus ferguson was another 8-1 ruling. justice harlan was the only dissenter. the court ruled through henry billings brown who was appointed a few years before, separate but equal is just fine. there is no requirement in the constitution that races the forced to share accommodations as long as the accommodations are available to each one or

equal. the accommodations were not equal the personal they overlooked. harlan not only use his opinion to produce one of the nation's great enunciations of individual liberty and racial equality but also destroyed the camouflage laid out by louisiana and accepted by the majority with a law mandating separation of the races wasn't discriminatory. he wrote everyone knows the statute in question had its origin and the purpose not so much to exclude white persons from real causes occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches and occupied by white persons. in one of the famous -- most famous lines ever to come of the supreme court harlan said in view of the constitution in the eye of the law there is in this country knows it. dominant ruling class of

citizens. there is no cast here. our constitution is color blind. it is important to remember that the tweet justices in the civil rights case based their rulings on a strict reading of the constitution where as arlen's to sends were based on the notion of fundamental justice. can you imagine the outrage today if a justice used the phrase everyone knows in an opinion? he might be vilified or sentimental. harlan's -- venerated with the civil-rights case receive only scorn from contemporary scholars. those decisions are more reflective of the way the court is headed and the way the political pressure on the court

is being applied. and harlan's notion that we are a country of fundamental justice. this is a cautionary tale. this is what happens when too much of a particular philosophy or when some people of one philosophy claim to have all the answers and people stopped talking to each other. the real truth to me is every justice is an activist. the constitution, you cannot know what the constitution means with absolute certainty. every justice is an activist and they apply a personal and we hope good faith interpretation to a document that the fis -- that is fine. if we fail to appreciate that america is not going to become a country of greater precision but a country of a lot less freedom. thank you and i will be happy to

take questions. [applause] >> i will lead off with a question. >> i can take the mike. >> but i have it. >> 11 get a foot in the door. [talking over each other] >> here is my question. this document was drafted at the end of the eighteenth century. we are heading into the twenty-first century. if it were more specific rather than as they get it often is would it have survived tour would have had to have been much more amended and it turned out to be? >> an excellent question. thank you for asking. it is the genius of the documents that we can look to at to find notions of who we want to be. what really disturbs me about 59

notion of fundamental justice by conservative and don't make the mistake of thinking i am personally liberal because i am conservative on a lot of issues but we are a country where the constitution was drafted to ensure fundamentalism. the constitution was not something that was drafted as a bloodless document. these were 55 men who met over the course of four months and it was remarkably difficult. many of you have not read the story of the constitutional debate. is an amazing story. people came and went and conditions were truly awful. we stayed and understood to have a country. have to compromise, you have to put forth what you believe to the the country that you see serve in all of these people and the lot more since everyone knew

the nation was expanding. a specific document. would it have lasted? ? and ending it but it wouldn't have lasted and created the country we have now. we all need to remain cognizant that a country of fundamental justice is a country we want. i don't think we want a country where someone says 1200 black men were lynched between 89 d and 1902. but unfortunately the law doesn't give us any choice how to deal with. fa maybe it does. let me put these down. >> the majority as much as what is going on right now. isn't that what it comes down

to? when the majority find something, whether or not an individual might make a sacrifice. >> the question was -- i will repeat the question because only i have a mike. isn't this a question of of the majority which is madison's great fear? the answer is yes. we always have to fear that a majority will impose its will on the electorate in such a way as to deny rights and justice to people in the minority. it is also true that anyone in power isn't going to give it up unless they are either forced to were voted out. so what it means is those of us

in the majority when we are in the majority in order to have the kind of country we want, we should be aware of the power that we wield as a majority and those of us in him minority at any particular time to shift -- should be aware that they have to work. and pushed -- there's no one answer. democracy is a very sloppy system. it is sloppy. it is inefficient but it is the other choice. you get these done. president obama said in the state of the union message whatever you feel about president obama he is right about this. if you have a country where government can just tell everybody what to do you can be extremely efficient but not

particularly free. we have chosen in our country to give weeks to lots of different kinds of people and lots of different interests and that will lead to a lot of inefficiency. is a tyranny of the majority issue. it is something you try to deal with it with varying degrees of success. anyone else? no? yes, sir. >> since there are so many stark examples of real inequality between blacks and whites especially in areas -- with these views in cases to try to challenge the doctrine of separate but equal? >> i don't quite -- on a daily basis -- >> blacks had inferior

accommodations. they had crummy hospitals. >> the answer is no. in northern lawyer the people mounting the challenge engaged, never used for the inequality of the accommodations in his argument. cut he wanted a complete constitutional victory so he never went to court. the other interesting thing was the railroad companies didn't like a separate car law because they had to put on extra cars how. they had to have an extra car for blacks and first-class cars for whites were not full. they might have helped the plaintiffs could be separate car

law overturned but the quality was never mentioned. so forjenne who is thought very highly of me in my opinion a huge blunder and by the time the law was challenged on the basis of inequality the president had been set and it was not until brown and all the schools cannot -- a broad segment of rights at the school. it took to brown for the justices who were willing to acknowledge inequality as an argument against segregation. >> do you want to address the argument we are hearing in arizona. you heard about our first-rate citizenship and people at the legislature who want a challenge to the fourteenth amendment that doesn't include -- never intended to include people born in the united states. have you given that many

thought? >> the funny thing about strict constructionists is they lead in the text of the constitution and only the text of the constitution until it goes against them. nothing in article iii grants the supreme court the right to say what the constitution means. there is no right of judicial review in the constitution. and more than that, backstone to conservatives generate said you should never let a court overturned a law the legislative act because then they become despotic. there is one exception to textual isn't. judicial review isn't in the

constitution. we made it up. we made it offered very good reason because the constitution is a kind of superlaw and as justice marshall said it is the job of the supreme court to say what the law is. that is not completely true. marshall made that too. so the tax duelists said we like the power to say what the law is so on that there is an exception to textual is in. in the fourteenth amendment is there an exception? if you believe in a living constitution we can debate the intent of legislators who ratified the amendment. what their intent was in writing that amendment. did we really intended to apply to children of illegal immigrants or simply to make sure every freed slave -- if you

don't believe in infant. if you are a conservative. if you are justice roberts for justice scalia or justice thomas for i don't know who your local justice is but forget it. the fourteenth amendment is barely understood meaning of that phrase is you are born here you are a citizen. how i can't answer but what i can say is those people screaming about judicial activism have no right to talk about the intent of the fourteenth amendment. yes? >> the view of the american political system that the supreme court once the justices are a.are insulated from politics and that is wonderful. it is very political. once justices are appointed do you subscribe to the court then or now or do you see the

political influence and life are in use a perhaps influence right now? turn it in a direction you find alarming? >> do i subscribe to the notion that once justices are appointed their free from political pressure? or do i think they give in to political pressure? i am tempted to say i was stunned at the number of justices who went against their own ideology in bush versus gore. i don't believe necessarily that justices are influenced by outside pressures. they have been in the past. the chase court i talked about was influenced by outside pressure. but they are influenced by their own reading. they are political in that they're not running for office

or hobnobbing with lobbyists for the justice thomas's wife is a lobbyist, but they are political in that they see the country in a political way. the justices in the courts i wrote about saw the country is certain way. the population simply did not want to share resources, accommodations with black people. and the court took the amendment and contorted it in such a way has to make it impossible for black people to have the rights that they were granted in the amendments passed after the civil war. today's justices, i believe, bring a political point of view to their decisions. it is who they are. to the other question is the

genius of our democracy. madison essentially said democracy works best when you lot -- lot people in a room and they come up with something that doesn't work completely for everybody but works a little bit for everybody and some people will be really unhappy. that is right. the court is like that. i don't see this as a conservative or liberal issue but i think the court is political in that the people who get to the court are political beings and once they're on the court the see the law in a certain way. the citizens united case, corporations having free access to political contributions is another eagle where the justice's ruling said this is -- corp. had a right of free speech. to i think corp. tammy right of free speech?

doesn't matter. doesn't matter in the constitution. there's nothing in the constitution that says you must make a corporation -- give a corp. personal rights. interestingly enough there's a case before the court where the justices for at&t asking for personal privacy rights since they have personal rights as a corporation and the justices including conservative justices are dancing around trying to get around it and justice roberts said sometimes the known is different from the adjective or squirrel or squirrely mean two different things because they are stock with what they have done. so the answer is yes. i believe they are intensely political but it is not necessarily that they're getting phone calls in the middle of the night from john boehner or mitch mcconnell telling them what to do but they don't need to. we have three political bridges