and george washington they were terrified of this prospect. they believed it would be infiltrated by enemies of the new government and the constitutional -- the union would be fractured, never to come together again. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. now on booktv, peter edelman bart is why we produce growth and technology at the same time. how to improve the income visions of tens of millions of americans living below the poverty line. ..

talking about how bad things are now, but we all know. it is a terrible time for a lot of reasons and especially for low and lowering income people in our country and. both directly and because of what is happening to our politics that are making matters a lot worse. vote for the poor and the near poor. as you know, it is happening at the federal level, because so many states are in deep fiscal trouble and are having to cut sometimes more easily than others. and we're seeing paul ryan and his friends and colleagues in the house proposing a budget that is truly astonishing and absolutely horrible both in terms of what it does to people

at the lower end and also the fact that it contained an incredible amount of further tax cutting out the top. robin hood would be turning over in his grave i think. but the purpose of my book is to put things similar to your context, to talk a little bit. and when you have a chance to read the oak, about we are where we are and what we need to do. and of course the harder question for all of us is how we can create a politics, where these issues and many others take a different turn, a better turn in our country. ronald reagan said that we fought a war on poverty and poverty won. well known and everybody heard

that. while the first thing i want to say and i of course say that vote is that ronald reagan was wrong about many things. the fact is that we need to celebrate this, but the public policies we have social security or a long list of the earned income tax credit and food stamps and so on are keeping 40 million people out of poverty so that instead of the 46 million people we haven't poverty, which is certainly bad enough and then found, we would be at 86 million without all of those policies we have. so we have been successful in our public policy. so there is a paradox here or an apparent paradox because what i said is absolutely true. but at the same time, if we look

at the trends of the percentage of people that are poor this country in 1973, we have the lowest percentage rate has since restarted count to in the early 60s. that was 11.1%. when bill clinton left office after ups and downs -- not downs of 1111.1, but we ended the century at 11.3%. of course since that time we've had 50 million more people join the ranks of the poor in this country. i might say parenthetically i'm sure almost everybody this, but the poverty line just so we have in mind is made $2000 now for a family of three. it's $23,000 for a family of four. not a very high income to have had a dollar above that and you're not poor anymore. so up to 46 million, even in

2000 the same poverty rate basically we had in 1973. a man on the other hand those 40 million people were being held to have a recipe in poverty. so how do those things fit together? that is really the heart of what this book is about. so first of all, in terms of who those 46 million people aren't just a couple of words and that is that most of them have worked. most of them are working. a lot of them can't find full-time work. a lot of them are in low-wage jobs, which i talk about at greater length. but it's not seven different kind of person who's for for all of us. most of the people of our poor in this country are below the poverty line for relatively short time. there's some people who are

consistently poor, intergenerational report. but we really have to add this idea that there's somebody who's different than the rest of us. basic, basic point about why we have so many low income people is because we have come a surprise surprise, so much low-wage work. you know, again you hear over and over again politicians tell you, well, you saw somebody's individual file. if they just try harder, if they didn't go get on welfare, all this stuff. the fact is, and we know of th, that manufacturing jobs went away. good paying jobs went away. a long time ago. we've replaced and job search is still pay enough to live on. but i am not sure if a sort of

crazed people here, people who are well, well-informed and read the papers, watch the news and all of that whether people are aware of the magnitude of all of this. the median wage in this country, half the jobs in this country pay less than $34,000. that's pretty low. a quarter of the jobs in the country pay less than the poverty line. so no wonder so many people are having much trouble. that way if there were two possible wage earners in a household, going back then and ever since then, okay, you could double that and do fairly well. you also had a great increase in the number of single moms, the number of people who are helping

this economy, with only one wage earner. we've gone from having the only alter the use of lowest income group, the active supplemental income, the effects of medicare and medicaid. the elderly are not the least support group in the country and the group, i'm not surprising you, that is the poorest are children. why? children have parents and this is largely a story about women. women are children and they are the poorest group. now that $34,000 job is almost the same amount that it is a 1973. it's only gone up, taking inflation into account, it's only gone up 7% in the 38 years

last year for which i've got members is 2011. only gone up 70% less than a 51%% per year. did the cannes jury -- to the economy macro? of course that group. all that growth has stuck at the very top. 1%, 99%, absolutely. so that is story number one if we need to have in mind an understanding why were stopping, why there's so many people having such a tough time. it goes all the way down into people working quite hard and can even get out of poverty. second point in in terms of the story of the situation that we have. this is astonishing increase in the number of people that have

incomes below half the poverty line, deep poverty, extreme poverty. 25 million people in that category was 12.6 million at the beginning of this new century. in other words, up by almost 8 million in just 11 or 12 years and double the percentage since 1976. well, what's that all about? largely about the near demise of cash assistance for mothers and children. second story that's largely about mothers and children. , deep poverty. we are now at the point where before welfare websites say reformed, reformed in 1996, 68% and poor families were receiving cash assistance.

not the benefits were terrible in some places. mississippi had 11% of the poverty line, that they were legally obligated to get under federal law to make welfare available to people who came and applied for it. so what's happened? well, i may tell you what's happened in this recession. it's really astonishing. fruit stands with our 26 million people in 2007. 26.3 million. in last five years that's got up to 46 million people. in other words, foodstamp swerved. that's when mr. gingrich called president obama to foodstamp president because we do program working to help people in the recession. silly as to foodstamp president. that's great. and food stamps were in fact

raised somewhat in the recovery act of the stimulus legislation on i was a very, very good thing. now why did they go up? because people had the legal right to get that wynnewood into the office to supply. non-needy family no longer a legal right. they go when they say to you, you look healthy, you look like you could work. they can say anything they want. is no obligation to do that, so when the recession, when up from 3.9 million people to 4.5 million. 20 million over there. so what we have now? well, the state of wyoming, 617 people in the entire state of wyoming, moms and kids. 4% of the children and wyoming

are getting canon. 25 states now come in six more since i started writing the book had under 20% of the poor kids. so no wonder we have people going into deep poverty. jason the program and the new york times at the beginning of 2010 and it's still the same now when you look at the department of agriculture statistics, 6 million people in the united states of america who have only food stamps for income, only food stamps astonishing a third of the poverty line $6000 for a family of three. so that is the second story, deep poverty, far worse than it was. 40 years ago far worse than it was 12 years ago. there is and that we have to have on the table at parties that the gender is a major part

of the story. of course, race is a major part of the story. and there's two things to keep in mind about that because it is well to remember especially for political reasons and trained to accomplish things in the people who are poor are white. and so it stands to reason except somehow it doesn't work politically. it stands to reason that okay, if you make food stamps more available, if you make any benefit you want more adequate, it actually helps more white people than people of color. okay, full text i'm not. others cited a is 27% poverty. african-american, latino, native american. 10% white poverty. so here's a picture i know except we don't talk about it very much. i always say that the most

dangerous place in americana is the intersection between race and poverty. he might have some other nominees, but it's a pretty dangerous place to be. so we need to have that conversation. the civil rights issues in the 21st century are that, race and poverty. and of course education as governor romney said the other day. i had to the commandments and see if i had that right. and the criminal justice system. in addition to the discrimination that violates the continuing job discrimination in various ways, discrimination in the housing, housing finance and so on, we have what we all know in terms of the structural, institutional discrimination of power racism of how our schools

operate, our criminal justice operate, each of those is in and of itself. and of course michelle alexander and the new jim crow, published by the new press, has made so clear how our criminal justice system operates. now, that is the kind of a fixed set of things that i talk about in the book. i also talk and i won't go into in great length here, but about poverty and relation to place. our inner cities, appalachia and indian reservations, mississippi delta, all of god because that is what we have the persistent poverty, where we have the intergenerational poverty. and i found it very interesting.

i was down in north carolina the last three days and you want to be safe when you stay in durham, the capitol hill, rowley sort of. anyway, so i went through what i just went through with you and of course is crucially important. when you're here in washington, we know the place is really important about poverty. what the issues they are and what we have to do and it's so much more complicated because we have to attack all of these things and deal with the people's choices about where they live and work in a job for something in the regional economy. but it's also something that's

much more engages people locally around the country than the things that are matters of federal legislation. we should all be behind having the best national policy that we can have about income and jobs. but the fact is that if were going to do something about poverty in place, and needs to have local commitment within the neighborhood. and needs to have civic responsibility. it gets much more and the question of personal responsibility. the existence of community development financing institution entering a development corporation, all of that becomes very, very important. so remedies -- i don't want to take a lot of time on that. this is so easy to go on for hours and hours that i want to get to your questions.

but certainly at the heart of this because at the heart of it, we're going to end poverty in this country, our jobs. we need to have an economy, a macroeconomic policy that maximizes the number of people working and we need to have jobs where people end up with an adequate income. the fact is that this is a very troubling fact and i hope i'm proven wrong about it. but i can tell you the things that we should do, not all of which are doing, but we should be raising the minimum wage. anybody who has any weight to be associated with unions and the politics about that but we need to strengthen unions because they're so important in our country and they can make such a difference. i heard mary kay henry at the seiu talk the other day at our american constitution society convention.

when you hear the things they are doing around the country, it gives you hope that we can really move forward. all of the things that we do better work supports, that any decent society should do our part of the raising income, whether specifically liked the effect of housing vouchers are living in public housing, that has an income equivalency about it. childcare has an income equivalency about it. pollak rants are obviously worth some pain. and of course the big one is health care. so maybe i'll call for a moment of silence, prayer for justice kennedy. if you're a praying person, cannot come to think some other way to communicate. so we'll find out on monday and we can all hope that the law is constitutional, that medicaid. you know, if there's any question in anybody's mind about has barack obama done what we

would've wanted or done good things about poverty, the answer is that he has. we have 16 million people on medicaid going forward, 16 million more people added. we've been trying to have that happen since 1965. that's huge. that's absolutely huge. but we did in the recovery act, 30% of that $787 billion was spent on low income people. that was terrific. the race to the top in education i imagine we could get a pretty strong conversation going about the details of that and probably some differences, but it was about low-income kids in improving education. we could wish that he would've taken more credit for them until the country that those things have actually happened in a clearer way, but it was the substance that was absolutely clear. besides the things they mentioned, we do have and can

support or people who are working with children, which is the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. those are very important. my worry is when you add up all of those things and you think about what it really costs to have an adequate income, to really not worry about whether you are one paycheck away from bankruptcy, whether even if you haven't health insurance company might not go to the doctor because you're worried about the coinsurance or word about the deductible. that number is something like twice the poverty line that i mentioned earlier. so i think they were going to do somewhat better on the low-wage jobs, which is raising wages. and india they're raising wages, but i worry and i think it is to get into the public conversation that when we do everything, we still are going to need to talk about supplementing wages in the

public policy to supplement wages. anyway, that's all in the worksite. as far as the safety net at the very bottom, it's easy to say -- so easy to say it hard to do. would restore with mothers and children. it has to be connected. it has to be designed in the right way, that the idea that only somewhat over 20% of american children who are poor are getting cash assistance is just unacceptable. the remedies go on into what we need to do about education, what we need to do about the criminal justice system. we need to be talking about the ladders of opportunity for young old. that's heavily about the place as well. the role of community colleges all of that. and then there's the question of the politics.

and now i can say about that is it's really up to all of us. it really is -- what we've got on our side as people of power. we don't know about citizens united. we all know about the incredible flood of money flowing into our politics. but we've got more votes than they do. and i think that the battleground is especially between 500% and 200% of poverty and on up into the middle. you know, it is okay if barack obama says we are struggling to the middle if he would only talk about the poor at the same time. but that struggle -- there are people by the millions who are voting against their economic self-interest, who somehow think they have more in common with people who don't want to get another nickel of their hard-earned billion dollars to pay taxes in this country and

somehow people who are earning 40, $50,000 a year think they are in the same boat as that. it's crazy. we absolutely need to get across that very simple point that it's their government. it's our government. those people are all the same. and if we want to have a government, grover norquist doesn't, wants to strengthen so strong about john in the bathtub. so that's the challenge to eyes, is to say this is our government. we're going to take it back at work right to do things that are helpful to the majority of people in this country. occupied that is started. i think we really should agree on that. occupied that is started, but that's what was it about. that was about political strategy. 99% out there and i'm a little

bit dubious about whether we got all of, throughout the 99%. now it's up to us. seiu come in the other faith groups, all of us, wherever we affiliate are acting on her own because i think our democracy is in danger. we can't have so much power at the top for big corporations and wealthy individuals without becoming a very different country. and we can't have these disparities from the top and the bottom and remained the democracy that we really claim we are and want to be. this has to change. we can look back to that. and somehow between the muckrakers and people getting out and teddy roosevelt we did have changed and turned says

select interest who through we can have through mr. through bradshaw who is a great friend as most of you know of that are king and a great man and himself said a lot of things. but one thing he said is very simple. and that is this, we are not all guilty, but we are all responsible. thanks for the chance to talk. [applause] >> just a reminder to ask for some q&a.

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> well, we obviously haven't figured that out yet. we thought we were making progress in 2008. we had fabulous participation. i'm sure many of us in this room. we had a real presidential contest right next door in

virginia. we could go over there and recruit candidates and make a difference for barack obama. and it seems to me that a lot of us after that said okay, now you're president, you could do it. and that was a huge mistake. that doesn't answer your question, but it may be ads to the question. i think over a period of time, it really is a combination of getting more people who are communicating the desolate and musing on the social media and everything else. and there are people in this room who do that all the time, do fabulous work. and all makes a difference. as organizing at the local level that we need to have that needs to get better. and the other thing is i would've thought we would've reached the tipping point by now, to use another author's

turn. and we have them. but my analogy, by reference to the area suggest that it's out there. you know, you saw the movie network. it's gotten so mad i'm not going to take it anymore. i can't say exactly when. we cannot go on this way. do i have a blueprint exactly how to do it? if i did i would've written it and i'd be yelling and screaming and so on. so it is challenge of trying to hasten that day by the organizing, what happens on the ground and what happens. it reaches people on the ground. >> hi, my name is matthew --

[inaudible] we don't want to identify the poor, but wouldn't it also be useful as a resourceful devise to have on the decline in generational mobility, the intersection -- [inaudible] >> absolutely. many of you know the work a the project on mobility. sounds like you do. and i do talk about it in the book. the part of this that people identify them. and this is tough stuff because they want to be optimistic. what you and i are telling each other is that the american dream

that we're going to have all americans are going to have children who have the same chance the children of people at the top of it's kind of not correct. that is a tad story to tell, but it's correct. it's been true since the 1970s that mobility in this country has been basically static, very connected to the connection of low-wage jobs because we will have children and grandchildren get the most education that they can because an individual case that many of them are going to make it. but to get across the idea that it's narrowed a lot more than a hat, then was true between the end of world war ii and 1973. and as i'm sure you know, this

tempest in the african-american community because 45% of young people who are more and into middle income families, john african-american men who are born into middle income families in the 70s and up as adults in the lowest quartile. that we don't want to just dwell on that. that's very, very disturbing and it's really bad. but the same kind of beef stock is true across the line, so you're absolutely right. that's very much a part of the story to have to tell. and the very fact. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> well, i don't think we know enough. they certainly think you're putting your finger on an important piece of that, of the entire picture there. just before i respond directly to that, we know that people in extreme poverty are disproportionately in this. they are disproportionally mothers and children, although they are significant number of single individuals, too. and they're disproportionately people of color. they go to the pine ridge reservation in south dakota and certainly some people in extreme poverty and so on.

but the point that you are basing about the multiple barriers has to do with the utter bankruptcy of what we've done to welfare card to cash assistance for moms and kids because when we got down to under 4 million people, they were a whole lot of people that were he said camus or just plain left behind with no cash assistance at all. but all said they were largely, other than whoever was there temporarily, largely people with multiple barriers that she talked about. we have a lot of research that said they are talking about an economy that's more robust than what we have now. you have to support them much more. he had to do with those barriers. but there's a question of particular attention of learning

to do so, depression or substance abuse problems or at the violence can is. congress in 2005 and debris authorized, when exactly the opposite direction and wind pulled to the fact that if he really wanted more people to go to work, you have to pay attention at a much more individual way. toby heard chicago, project match who has done that quite successfully with moms who had particular issues. and the point is you've got have coaching, try to stay with them. you can do it. you know, it's easier not to bother. cost as much in one sense except in human terms. so yes, if we want to be serious about it. but the other thing if we want to be serious about it, we

either have to provide the cash assistance or we have to create the job. and of course were not doing that. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> divided 50/50 >> we have to reelect burka bomb and take about the house. we also have to support the city in the washington.

so it's very hard to get done. if you allowed me to speak in a more general way, it's obviously important to have small contributions. going into political campaign and large number. that keeps us to be more democratic with a small d. but all of these great organizations in our city, many of them maybe you working for nonprofits that are vital to making a difference for low-income people. you know, i am talking up your 10,000 feet. we had to have all these changes in terms of income policy in other kinds of structural problems. if we can help one person get

housing, we've done a fabulous thing. everyone who does that works one by one in the course of their lifetime is helping thousands and thousands of people. we need all of that in order to have all of that we have to give money to the. so maybe add more money to give away than you do. so i do both. [laughter] [inaudible] >> one of the things to answer questions -- find your issue or your thing and work hard at it, rather than try to spread it really thin. my issue for me is a worker rights. [inaudible] >> well, i like that.

i'll take that as a very friendly amendment. thank you. [inaudible] >> yes, what did you think of his kinesthetic? my friend hannah liebermann is sitting there looking at me. no, you may know i'd share the d.c. access to justice commission, so it is something that i spend a lot of time that, but i know of as many you do local services committee come in and this is true around the country. and so, while over 95% of people who come in to our landlord tenant court has no lawyer.

and we have good laws on the books to protect them and we have ways -- where the counseling center when they come in where they could get a little briefing on how to go and mary. but you know, various kinds of basic were destined to lose if they don't have a lawyer. it's really, really hard to win. turn not quite over, when we can get to the lawyer or at least impartial, what we called limited spoke representation, it makes a huge, huge difference. one of the things that i am very proud of is that we went to our city council, now six or seven years ago that our state, anyway there were 43 states are putting money into the club services. d.c. was not. and nowadays and we have for

time lawyers out of 150 or so that we have financed the city money. so when the landlord town kirby doubled the number of lawyers who are working full-time east of the river. all that matters but there is about public and it fits, whether it's about some consumer issue, whether it's about family law in some way protecting the women from domestic violence. all of that including stopping an addiction. in specific cases, it is very much the different and being in poverty cannot. we've got to do all of this. >> find an emigration to got to focus on. that's an issue that it is about poverty. people don't want to say the p.

word. they don't want to talk about poverty. i worked for over 20 years and community action. when it was created back in the 1960s, there was sent to the industry, a food industry, employment industry. it started to address poverty. but now it is gotten disconnected from other issues i think in a lot of ways. and i think that's not served us well. >> well, if there is a trade-off there, obviously we have very serious problem sites have to doubt that we are out there. we have the various ways in which people and making a difference all the way from what they do one-on-one to the public policies that i know we tacked about that are keeping 40 million people out of poverty. i think you put sure something

that i'm not sure -- i. guess who is difference this sense and a warm poverty. so you can get people to protect or run programs although it's good to protect food stamps for all the nutrition programs to be working to have your passion be working on immigration but that said that dog tied to a particular issue with a different name than poverty. you're quite right. it's hard to get broad public support for them. i don't again have a great answer to that, but at least if we identify the problem, maybe in terms of the various kinds of ways in which the organizations

that do work on those issues communicate with the public, but it's a constituency for those things on a cost-cutting basis. don't just lobby on your issues. think about the cost-cutting issues that don't have anybody in particular her own fan and get on those as well. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> i guess i could give a whole, just to begin with, that had trickle-down doesn't work. all saved that speech. for one thing, not paying enough taxes means we don't have enough money to run the government. now that's just not low-income people pick up a lot of things we need to do. also true if we spend unnecessarily on defense, were not doing other things. so it's not just about taxes. so i think there is one aspect of it is just don't share it by law. we can't do thanks that we need to do. but then, there's a part of it that's not really just money.

people just feeling correctly that they are not wanted as part of a social fabric that they're out and they're not included. and that's going to happen much more -- and a much more awful way if there's a sense that just a handful of -- a few handfuls of people and companies really have the koch brothers and all the rest of that. so i think it's a combination of the literal effect of the money being divided. and you know, it has the effect. we have a gated community and the effects of that is much, much more vindicates themselves, defenses themselves. it's an apartment that's just distracted. they know nothing about the rest of the society, care nothing

about the rest of the society. i got mine jacked, pull up the gameplay and then shut your traps and back with it. so it's really corrosive to the quality of the democracy itself. >> one more question. [inaudible] >> my personal thought is we need to get the young people -- [inaudible] >> do you want me to ask?

[applause] do want me to make them raise their hand? [inaudible] anybody who wants to confess. >> don't you think anybody who came to hear this to be registered. if you're not registered tomorrow, you're absolutely right. you're so absolutely right. okay, i think we are done. thank you so much. [applause]

>> well, well known author, jeffrey toobin is joining us here in new york city at book expo america to talk about his new upcoming book, "the oath: the obama white house v. the supreme court." mr. toobin, went to concentrate on the versus prior. is there -- [inaudible] >> you bet there is. this is a moment where we have a liberal democratic resident and a conservative dominated the supreme court and issue after ratio, you see a real conflict. the >> what are some examples of the conflict? >> the most dramatic we have already seen is the case where the court struck down the miss from corporate giving campaigns, but in a broader sense, set in

motion a process of tea regulating american campaigns. and in a remarkably vivid demonstration of the conflict, many people were a member of the 2010th save the union address, what the president attacked the spring court to their face and samuel alito and beyond and shook his head and said not true. and the supreme court often just an abstraction. what i loved was that was not abstract. it was concrete and he saw the conflict. of course the health care cases perhaps an an even greater conflict between the conservatives on the court and the a bomb administration. >> welcome overachieving this interview june 5, 2012. the book didn't come out until september. the health care decision could come down any monday in june, right click >> my money is on june 25, but

it certainly decided by the end of the month. >> is that when your book finishes? >> i will rush to complete -- the book is basically written, but i will be a list to include the health care. the >> so if it is overturned in its entirety, what does that mean? >> you be a decision of epic proportions, even if they overturn the individual mandate, which based on the oral argument seems the most likely result. not since the 1930s and the famous conflict between another liberal president and a conservative supreme court have you -- that's the closest parallel to what's going on now because stage is nearly a tie. >> mr. obama has been president now for four years iniki gets

reelected and another for an appointed to supreme court justices. who's the next likely retirement? >> it is harder to tell them the election of 2008 hatband, it was all but certain that david souter and john paul stevens were going to leave. that is more or less an open secret that they were on their way out. it is less certain heading into 2012 the election because ruth bader ginsburg is the oldest member of the quarter. she's 78. she's in good health, full of energy. has often said that her idol, louis brandeis served until he was 82 and it sounded like a good member. just tiscali have come a 70 sixers vote, justice kennedy, 75 years old. once you get in the upper 70s, it's not always your choice when you leave the court. so i would say it is less clear to the next justice would leave.

also, politics plays a big part. ruth ginsburg is going to be a lot more likely to consider leaving if barack obama is president dennis mitt romney's president by the same token, justice scalia and justice kennedy would be much more likely to leave under a romney presidency than under an obama presidency. >> is there such thing as the roberts court? >> absolutely, absolutely. the story of the supreme court is the story of american politics in a nutshell because to me the biggest development of the last 20 years has been the evolution of the republican party. moderate republicans dominated the united states supreme court for decades and the weather was john marshall harlan in the 50s, lewis powell in the 70s, sandra day o'connor in the modern era. moderate republicans are gone from congress and they're gone from the supreme court.

samuel alito and john roberts reflect the modern republican party. the polarization we see in congress we now see in the united states supreme court. so that to mean is the roberts court. it is a more conservative court than william rehnquist ever let. >> in your book, you describe john roberts is a radical. >> i do. the book is called "the oath" and it begins with the story of the botched oath that everybody remembers so well, but no one has told the story of why it was botched and that is why you open the book. and it is both a nature scene story on its own, but it also said that the protagonists, barack obama and john roberts. and the paradigm is that the man who claimed to be the candidate of change and the supreme court

justice who claimed to be the baseball umpire who didn't want to change the rules have precisely reversed positions. it is obama who is trying to preserve what the court date and it is john roberts to is the radical trying to change the corporate. >> so why was the oath botched? >> well come at all against the misdirected e-mail. john roberts and his staff very meticulously as john roberts does everythingmeticulously wrote out how he was going to divide up the words of the old and he very carefully how to staff e-mail and to the congressional campaign, the congressional and nonzero committee. that group never forwarded to the obama office, president-elect office. so obama did not know how roberts is going to divide the

oath. and if you see the source of the confusion, obama jumped in before roberts expect them to do it and roberts very uncharacteristically got flustered and that was the problem. >> today of any kind of a personal relationship? >> none. not antagonistic, not friendly, just nonexistent. they come from different worlds. there are interesting parallels between their lives. they are about six years apart in age, both are products of different ways of chicago. obama came of age as a community organizer. john roberts was born and raised in the northern indiana, sorted in the the outskirts of chicago. both products of harvard law school, both products of the harvard law review. both have one marriage and two young children. but the differences are far

greater than the similarities. >> now, i'd enough you can tell us the scum of did john roberts talked to you for "the oath"? >> one of the things it is true for the first book, the nine and also this book, as i have not spoke to the justices. but i did say i spoke to a majority. >> and jeffrey toobin, besides the health care case, what are you looking forward to in the next term that we should keep an eye out for? >> this is a huge term. next term will be enormous as well. affirmative-action come in the future of affirmative action university of texas case enormously important. voting rights act, section five of the voting rights act, will that be continue? and there is one other big one. i am so focused on this term. there is one other big case coming up next term. voting rights act -- sorry, i'll

have to leave your viewers in suspense. it is for the next book, not for this book. >> we've been talking with jeffrey toobin. >> when you think of it, c-span. >> "the oath" comes out in september 2012. "the oath: the obama white house v. the supreme court" published by doubleday. you can also watch mr. toobin regularly on cnn. thanks for joining us here at the book x though america. >> what are you begin this summer? pokes tv wants to know. >> i will finish up our divided political harpers e.j. dionne. i have paul krugman's latest book in the summer because i really do want to end this depression now. and i just received if they can't ignore it at fronds, i