you know, we spend most of our days reading. we read briefs. we read amicus briefs which are briefs by friends of the court. we read the record that has been created below. we read the decisions of courts across the country who face the question. we been research and we write and we write and then we edit, and almost every day we are reading research and writing. it doesn't sound very exciting, does that? ..

the.

>> to think about the question not based on your personal likes or dislikes for the true interpretation you're taught in. so the process could seem boring to the outsider but someone who loves law the way i do but the other half with interacting with the public, the supreme court gets visitors from around the world. i have met with school children as young as second grade. grammar school, high

school, college, professiona l, not just law school by meet with students to be doctors, businessmen, and meet with groups of all kinds who meet with the justices to have a conversation judges from around the world that people read our pieces. but for each of us to learn from each other but i travel for law school, bar association and enjoy other types of groups but how what makes me so passionate for what i do i can get them to

understand a little bit better. i am told they will be better citizens, more active citizens working in the community. we are busy on a lot of different cases. it is a microcosm. >>host: the most popular question submitted is how do the justices get along? [laughter] i know relations among you are deeply collegial. so i am wondering whether the conference rituals and how do you build relationships?

>>guest: if you come into the process appreciating every single justice on the court has a passion and love for our constitution and country, then you know, if you except that operating truth, you can understand you can disagree respectfully. but if those decisions are not so nice to each other other, that is because we have a commitment to the

answer we think is right. and from your personal relationships, when people think they are right they can get agitated. [laughter] but in person we treat each other with affection and love. because we understand and respect it. i hope i did not use to many of those phrases in my book but we spend more time with each other than any of us spend with our spouses or friends. because we work together. every day of the week. we are doing our work in our office or elsewhere

constantly. when you spend that much time with each other you figure how to love each other and still disagree. it is what family does every single day. try figuring out what movie you go to on a friday or saturday. >>host: i and a stand with the initial conference you take turns a cannot speak again until it comes around to use. >> to make sure nobody hogs up all the time. [laughter] on wednesdays, of the vote on the cases we heard on a monday. on friday, we discuss and vote on the cases we heard on tuesday or wednesday. so we break it up a little bit because it could take time to talk about a case. the chief does two or three sentences to remind us

although that we know but to ensure we are on the same page. sometimes, not very often he will say the issue is this and it will come around and somebody will saddled think that is the issue. it is there. you have to start there. then he tells you the vote and why and explains why the other side argument makes sense. the next person is the most senior judge after the chief in years of tenure. so now it is justice scalia. he says later agree with the chief, and if i do, i do on everything except, i don't think we should mention this, i don't think one of those is a reason but present the argument that way.

he expresses his thinking and why. it goes down the line until it reaches the most junior justice. but somewhere in there someone may say i disagree all together and i will dissent. they explain why. and why the other side is wrong. and then they will do the same if there are others. yes, we should say this, no we should not say that. by the time the conference ends, when the writer of the opinion is ultimately signed , and if he is not in the majority then the most senior judge who voted assigns the opinion. if it is the dissenting group the most senior judge

to set picks who writes. but by the time we sit down to right an opinion you have a very clear outline of what your colleagues are thinking. it is your job to right in opinion said other people will join. you need five votes to win. there is a joke among the judges if you're on the trial court you make a decision. of the appeals court, there is three judges. you count to two. you in the other on the supreme court, you know, how to count to five. okay? but you have to right some people will join your opinion. the same with the dissent. you want people to say you are right.

that is how the process begins. clearly come after the drabs sometimes people say you are not thinking about it the way i am. the conclusion may be the same. i am dissenting but i may say that not for that reason that for this reason. but we try to come together as a group as often as we can. >>host: yesterday's inauguration. [applause] the integration reminds us of the power of the constitution.

why does it work? it's remarkable a guiding document has worked 223 years in the world's most of first nation. why do you think it works? >> because our forefathers did not write a document of that kind but they rode it to last. they did that by trying not to define, but to use terms and concepts that each generation could interpret. one of the biggest issues the court is constantly grappling with it is in this age of new technology, what is unreasonable search and seizure?

we have dealt with cases about can the government flyover your home and use technology that takes the air that emanates from your home? we have questions about wiretaps, a gps tracking tracking, people in cars, we will have many more. for sure the forefathers had no idea. [laughter] computers and computer chips would come into existence. even benjamin franklin, i doubt very much. [laughter] that he ever in his wildest fantasies imagines the

things we can do today. if they had used terms that were more specific, we would not have been given the opportunity to define with experience. said they did a mixture of very, very clear things. you cannot do this. one thing we forget you cannot quarter the militia in people's homes except in times of war. that is pretty specific. but there were many other things they left general. i think that is why. they gave us a concept. and we are guided by that concept but not wedded to a fixed time.

>>host: what worries you about the constitution? any trends are issues you might have your eye on? [laughter] >>guest: are you a lawyer? [laughter] many. with this is not the forum to talk about it. but with the recent election has given me gratification. our forefathers were citizens, and by the way they were all men, a favorite of the community, the elite of that society, businessmen, a successful farmers, people who had high education. and they traveled the world and learned from other

cultures. they had out -- studied government from other countries from taking and choosing from the various things and do come up with creative solutions for the issues they thought had not been resolved. what i am gratified is more people are voting now than they have in the past years. it is their obligation. to not let the country just

happened. but create the country they want. that is why i tell people when they ask how you feel about the immigration law? how do you feel? because they generally have cases and i don't want to people to believe i made at my mind. i haven't prettify express an opinion that is what they will believe. but having said that, what i often say is why aren't you asking yourself? what you doing about it? if you thank you don't like

something? that is what your country was founded on with your people getting up and starting a war to start a country i am not suggesting a rebellion. [laughter] far from that, please. but i am encouraging civic responsibility. we should all be out there lobbying for what is important to us. you take charge of that change, not the court. >>host: last question. taking you back to your nomination come in the period from your nomination

to the swearing-in, to the supreme court, was there a moment that stands out that was particularly meaningful? >>guest: i think i spoke about it earlier. the moment when i realized how extraordinarily special my mother was. you take the people we love for granted. their inner life and sometimes don't really know how important they are. the most special moment of all through the nomination process, and was not letting friends show me any press through the nomination process that my friend said you have to watch this. i watched my brother being interviewed on television. he was describing me.

and he started to cry. and in that moment, like never before, i knew how deeply my brother love to me. most of us don't get a chance to see that or feel that except moments of tragedy, the death. i got to feel it in a joyful way, that may have been the greatest gift. >>host: justice sotomayor did you for a beautiful evening. here is a gift from us. [applause]

>> in knowing about you it was a no-brainer but i felt privileged to right the forward because i had the chance to recognize that my dad would have been homeless himself, born to a single mother now my father exaggerated more dramatically. he was not just before he was po. he could not afford the other two letters. [laughter] but his committee was watch will of the children and was taken in by another family whose extraordinary love kept my father on a trajectory for word. people in the community poet dollar bills together amplexus for semesters' tuition together so it became a reality so everything with a conspiracy of love but it starts with

the young people. what bothers me is we talk so dramatically and in such a negative fashion. we don't realize who was a child that we could have done more for the challenges they face as adults. some say it is easier to raise strong children than raise broken man. but i feel the urgency we do not prioritize our children as much as we should. >> host: we have heard her favorite part of the book is the foreword. [laughter] which is lovely. we worked two and a half years on the book. and it is from the harbor also you are engaged with

the snap challenge. what is it? >> my staff teases me i was up late with my girlfriend, a twitter. [laughter] it was a sunday night before i went to bet going back and forth and people think they are dumb frankly. [laughter] but i was getting into an intellectual question about the role of government and it should not provide the nutrition of children. it struck a chord to me because i don't think people know what that would mean. we don't realize we live in a society that if you make small investments early you don't have to make big investments later and all of us are in fact, are deeply in debt to the kids because the more our economy

grows, teachers, professors grows, teachers, professors, entrepreneurs are the greatest natural resource in america is our children. long story short, a woman says this and i go at her and she comes at me and we say why don't we see what it is like to live on the snap program? i went to bet and i woke up and it was a big story. [laughter] i called my staff and said guess what i am doing? but it was a powerful thing because we're one of 14 cities in america that has a food policy director. i think all should. we have done a lot of work to expand affordable and healthy options. i said this is a great thing

if we could not only raise apples of compassionate understanding to dispel the bad stereotypes' of the families on a snap and focus on the realities of that but the policy changes for a local level to address food insecurity and through desert and expand healthy options. i had a poignant moment where we think of our society as a whole. we had security guards in my office and talking with them because some of them make $7 and change per hour in many working overtime but still qualify for programs like snap. here we allow many employees i think the curtain is year.

to notice the sex and love section it is like a line across the certain magazines. [laughter] you should put your books on the sex of rail. >> we should call it 50 shades of homelessness and. [laughter] you have a dirty mind. but these poignant testimony spee lived in a society with "frontline" first responders , one building was targeted by people as terroristic intent and tear on the front lines but we can only pay them $7 per hour with no benefits, no retirement, one guy said he worked 10 years and has no

health insurance that is not the america i think of. i hope that this week we can bring more attention to these problems. right now congress will be debating cuts in the snap program. in this time of austerity we cannot be done a cuttings that provide long-term benefits. we should prioritize these federally. >> mayor, you were speaking in your for word about small actions. we talking in the book about small actions people take to help homeless young people. can you talk about how that works in a city? >> first of all, i have lots of conversations with people who have quote-unquote made it like to either period who was homeless living in a

car. people throughout my community who have broken drug addiction, dealt with a brutal, brutal hatred because they came out of the closet at a young age. it is amazing people talk about how one small act of congress -- act of kindness it gives me chills that we all have that power the biggest thing we do could be a small act of kindness to someone else. that vulnerability and fragility of life you will see up close and personal and how it does not take that much effort to be there for a kid. >> personal finance starts in the 1930's was sylvia

porter and it is a spinoff of the self-help business. the 1930's are known for everything from the hard economic times from alcoholics anonymous, and napoleon hill thinking, i get rich, to various social activist movements like communism and fascism in developing. sylvia porter's developed this over period ears and her goal was to educate people so the great depression never happens again but it is an idea we can teach people certain skills and we will be okay.

>> host: university of pennsylvania history professor, steven hahn the author of "the political worlds of slavery and freedom." professor, before we get into the subject what is this image on the front cover. >> guest: a good question. i have no idea. the editor proposes a very eye-catching image when i showed it to friends and colleagues they had no idea what it meant. does not clearly relate to anything in the book but they bring interested in selling books.

that is how they chose it. is an interesting photograph, and speaks to complex connections within the african-american community with gender and power, but beyond that, i don't know. >> host: professor hahn what do we know wrongly about slavery in the u.s.? >> guest: one of the issues i try to do with is the process by which slavery ended and the geographical reach of slavery. the view that tends to be handed down, the country be divided between the free states and so-called slave states and the civil war growing out of that conflict. my issue is not if slavery is that the root of the

civil war but what interested me was the relationship between the early emancipation of slaves in the northern states in the later emancipation later in the southern states. slavery was legal in all other british colonies and all of north america and gradually the northeast and mid-atlantic states abolished slavery but it is a gradual process we discover there were slaves in new jersey 1860's and most that abolished slavery between 1780 and 18 '04, had to do it again later in the 19th century because there is so much ambiguity with the road to slavery.

then i try to step back to say if this is the case what does this mean for emancipation in the united states and the notion of sectionalism that organizes our understanding of american political history? but slavery is national and communities of runaway slaves should be understood understood, of a rude of future to the slave community and the links between those of african descent and slaves in the southern states are important circuits that we should pay more attention to. >> host: what are the primary documents you used? >> i used a lot of different

things. i used narratives written by slaves that had run away to freedom. what struck me is although we think about the mason-dixon line or the ohio river then you were free, but we tend to focus on the first path of the narrative of the enslavement in the south sat when you got to the other side, as the gray area of freedom and how precarious life was in the so-called free states and many runaways felt the need to go to canada or britain because there was no way to achieve freedom because of the slave laws. these were important. looking at the emancipation statutes passed by

individual states and recognizing basically they only free the children of slaves and only when they became adults depending on the gender. and then, the very gray area where then it seemed to be okay that former slaves were indentured. those who were in slave then liberated ended up siding multi-year indentures. somehow the court's thought that was okay for a while. and hiring of slaves as someone who was a slave in kentucky might be hired in pennsylvania.

it will often allow the slave to remain for a specified period of time but but it was a distinct that with the election of 1860 although lincoln powerfully tried to make a case. with the reflection of reality. >> host: we talk today about red states and blues states but conservatives but wasn't the same with slavery? was there is sympathy? >> more to the point* of the democratic party was up to the election of 18 and 60 during the period of popular elections for national office was the majority

party in the united states and up party devoted to state rights and local control. and though hold people in the north who were pushing back against potential promises of power. budget it was sufficiently widespread that the link in administration was worried. california and oregon are very far away from the centers of power when of the reasons why we can build the transcontinental railroad because he wants to extend the reach of federal authority. if you think why did lincoln

do what he did, part of the logic is not just the state's that seceded from the union but the prospect of the country as whole of the federal government did not assert its power and authority. in the midwest there is talk about new york being a free port of entry. so to look back and knowing the results which led to the emergence of a nation state for the first time. with them much greater reach. and for the long period of time it is important to

recognize in terms of the civil war the early states that seceded from the union were slave states. it in for it to be a question of slave rights. >> host: the "emancipation proclamation" did it put an end to all of these discussion with the remnants of slavery? >> it was a very important moment because the united states, the lincoln did ministration exercising his power of commander in chief abolishes slavery without compensation to owners. but slaves were property have you abolish property rights? the they abolish slavery so they drop colonization so it

is central as discourse from thomas jefferson to abraham lincoln and provided for the military recruitment of people of african descent of whom where slaves and not of slaves. but for the state militia because of the connection between military service and citizenship claims. they did not cover all of the slave states that left out areas of the confederate states under federal control. the tension between who is really going to finish the emancipation process we can try the border states even gradually but what is more

as important as it was, it was a war measure. what was going to have been with the emancipation of proclamation retained its legal authority what it effectively be overthrown for the courts? they came to secure emancipation but remember the "emancipation proclamation" would only be an effect is the union side went to war and the confederate surrendered. there is a lot of talk about the armistice and it is clear if there was, the principles really was go out the window and at that played there is no question slavery would not return as it has before but history does go backwards. >> the political world of

slavery and freedom what was the participation of their own political freedom? >> it has been a great interest to me and there is a lot of push back precisely because he doesn't acknowledge the significant effect slave activities had to push emancipation. one thing that interested me is why slaves did what they did during though war. as scholars began to recognize they did play a role and undermining slavery to force the union side to deal with the slavery question with the lincoln administration initially preferred not to add all.

they wanted to deal with secession and reconciliation and sought slavery would complicate the process. why did they do that? that i was interested the adn that the slaves brought to the civil war era. they had a more sophisticated understanding of politics than we realize. and the nation was divided and they imagined they had allies with the republican party. read the newspaper accounts in the fall of 1860 there is a lot of talk of what slaves' think is going on. they think that abraham lincoln is on their side, he will move against the owners, once elected, a feeling emancipation may have come or when inaugurated but is not being enforced on the ground.

once the union army invades the knowledge or interpretation which is wrong is an amazing case in history where people who are so outside the process understand the meaning better and act in a way to bring it to reality with the imagined sense of the political issues. >> host: how many southern african american slaves fought on the union side? did slaves also fight for the confederate states? >> guest: roughly 150,000 southern slaves in the union army or navy during though war. 185,000 african-americans altogether and it 80% to from the south. there is talk african-american slaves fighting -- fighting for the confederacy but there is no

evidence. some then dipped in the confederate army taken by their owners as the servants by the end there was discussion whether the confederacy in order to preserve the rebellion and enhance military capacity should try to enlist slaves. the recognition is you could not do that without abolishing slavery. the end of the war for the confederate tests and the bill that private -- provides for investment but no guarantee that the of war ended before it could go into effect. via via their case is in the louisiana, a regiment of putting people in color --

of color in your land said initially supported the confederacy but then immediately switch sides. there is talk as an example of loyalty to owners, but i have never seen evidence that is compelling along these lines. >> host: and your interest goes beyond the civil war. why? why does marcus garvey get some much attention in your book? at. >> guest: a good question. the book i wrote before "the political worlds of slavery and freedom" is called the nation under our feet. >> host: it won the pulitzer 2004. >> guest: about african-american politics with slave migration was not sure how that book would end. i also became more and more interested, persuaded by what i saw as a powerful

separatist tendency among former slaves. i saw it cropped up in a lot of different ways. then i came across information that garvey's movement that i had never known about. the more i looked, the more interesting it became and garvey build a nationwide movement based not only in northern cities but in the rural and small-town south. there were more garvey chapters than anywhere else in the united states. it is an international movement. one of the things i discovered in this book that as as if finished a nation under our feet "i thought it would be a secondary

literature on garvey's movement in the united states. i discovered there was none. there was a lot on garvey himself as a controversial figure but those who was moved and with there understanding, there is virtually nothing so the nation under our feet by cobbled things together and thought i need to know more about this. and one theme is what historians don't rightabout and why there are certain interpretations that steer you in the face but you refuse them or ignore them. garvey is one. anyone bush did acknowledge that it was the largest mass movement of people of african descent ever. yet we know almost nothing

about it. it just seemed to me it was a very odd thing. the reason is it complicates our slavery to freedom narrative. garvey does not fit in. it identify is a tendency that is powerful and does show up among civil rights activists. the more i looked a connection with russia nuia it is more widespread. think of rosa parks they all had garvey connections. there is a picture of african-american in politics that is much more complicated than we want to acknowledge. we have come to terms with our past by constructing a narrative about house slavery ends and freedom is

ultimately realized so the civil-rights movement becomes the crucial and point*. and episodes, a people's movements that don't fit into better very problematic. also the scholars across the political spectrum who have an investment to deny it to. i had a lot of push back of anything i have written written, that part of what i discovered, the movement is still alive, there is a chapter in philadelphia, i organized a conference three years ago, a scholarly conference on nuia but at the last minute i advertise it in the local newspaper and 150 garvey-ites showed up. >> host: what is the

garvey-ites political focus? >> guest: nuia, there are some chapters, the one in philadelphia, some in the united states, some elsewhere in the world. also people who are kind of nationalist in their political views. they may embrace ideas about separatism so kirby's idea is an understanding and connection with africa is very powerful. i think it tends to be especially powerful with such as african-americans that are working class or pork, whereas the civil rights narrative and movement i think connects more with african-americans

who are middle-class and well educated and the civil-rights movement had its greatest accomplishments to promote the expansion of black middle-class in greatest failures of african-americans who are working class. >> host: on location at university of philadelphia talking with history of professor comment professor hahn. >> i am now teaching a course on the south from the civil war through may 20th century. i also teach a lecture course called slavery, race and revolution started with the haitian revolution of the late 18th century and goes through a frites sort i'd like emancipation in the broad western hemisphere and how interconnected it becomes.

i teach an introductory course the making of the modern world that is a world history course with an african history colleagues starting mid 18th century through present and i teach graduate students and their work 19th century broadly and history of american and empire that i now work on of book that is a history of the 19th century and all lot about the west. a new area of interest. >> host: talking with professor hahn about his most recent book "the political worlds of slavery and freedom" and also the pulitzer winner for his 2004 book, "a nation under our feet quote. >> guest: thank you for having me. i really enjoyed it.

>> at the national press club books and author night

the author of how a former journalist discusses the crisis. why are you a former journalist? >> guest: because it could not become the mother i wanted to of a small child and do the journalism i wanted to do. then i found it a career as a public interest lobbyist. but i was always very emotionally attached to journalism. this gave me a chance to connect with people many to left journalism at the top of their game with the biggest media outlets in the country. the was able to explore with them feelings about the profession. this is media criticism with a human face. these are wonderful stories. the lives of journalists are very exciting and rich. and their reasons for leaving the

profession, sometimes they leave and come back or leave and start their own nonprofit investigative journalism as chocolate listed common they made a leaf and becomes the author of the wire. these people had rich and varied stories. they end up leaving "the reader" with the idea journalism is not dead. the future of journalism is a little uncertain but the need for journalism continues. >> host: your profile 11 former journalist in this book. what is different now with the contemporary landscape paternalism and media than when you were a journalist? >> guest: the biggest difference is 24/7. right now journalists don't

have much time at all. there never was a lot of time to explore in be thoughtful but now it is all about breaking news. that is a big difference. also, not a lot of opportunities for journalists to learn or grow to become more proficient or knowledgeable. that is a difference now. >> host: is this something you heard why they left their profession? >> guest: most of them if not all of them said basically i wanted to do more and i was asked to do less. >> host: would you ever come back to journalism? and what would you cover? >> guest: i am not sure. i love writing this book. it is more likely i would do another book. >> host: if you are interested in the profession author of out o