>> please let us know about book fairs and festivals happening in your area and we will be happy to add them to our list. >> in this high-tech digital age with high-definition television and digital radio, still all we ever get is static, that they'll a distortion and lies and misrepresentations and half-truths. went we need the media to give is a dictionary definition of static. opposition unwonted interface but we need immediate -- me that covers power, not covers for power. we need a media that is the force of state, not for the state. and we need a media that covers the movements that create static

and make history. >> executive producer of democracy now, amy goodman taking your calls, e-mails and facebook comments and tweets, "in depth," three hours live today at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> welcome to mesa, arizona, on booktv. with help of our cox communication cable partner, for the next hour we will explore the history and literary scene of the city of about 450,000. first a look at asia valley city in a desert climate deals with water rights with the colorado river. >> it is considered to be the most litigated river in the world, and that is probably very accurate. more lawsuits, contracts, laws to regular what is collectively known as the law the river. there's probably 13, 15 major

laws that have spanned the whole 20th century was up until the present time that is talked about who gets how much of this water and who can take it, how much every year, how to share it, and our relationship with mexico in the water as well. the colorado river is about 1450 miles long. it's not the longest river in north america by any means, notice of have the most flu. probably about number seven in terms of size, but it drops 8000 feet or so from its source in the rockies. it used to go all the way down to the gulf of california, which then the ocean but it doesn't reach very often anymore. only rare occasions does it get that far. there are seven states in the united states that depend on the river, and two in mexico. so you have wyoming them which probably has the least amount of water but it also has most of the source of tributaries along

with colorado. and nevada, utah, new mexico and arizona and california. the basic water law in the west is what we call the law of prior appropriation. it differs from riparian water law which is in most of the rest of the united states. where water rights are connected directly to land, and if you have land that has water, then you have a right to the water. if you sell land, you sell the water. you can't sell the water without selling the land. there's just not enough water out here to have the law operate that way. so the minors very early in western history in the early 1800s coming to california made up their own sort of agreement with each other. whoever got their first cup of water. they have the right to direct it wherever they needed it, and

sometimes that's a very long way, a long distance that you have to send water to where it's needed. so this law of prior appropriations as it evolves over the decades becomes law, which basically comes down to first in time, first in right. if you get there first, you have the most water. whoever comes next, gets what is left of it. so there's one caveat and that is the caveat of beneficial use. you have to push water to beneficial use to have a right to it. people can summer get to river and claim it and not use it. so if you're using it for some beneficial purpose, and you got there first, then you have the right to the water. all of us in the colorado river basin, or watershed, and we're talking about some of between 35-40 million people now in united states in mexico as well, they all depend, we all depend on the colorado river as our

basic water source. there is ground water. there are other rivers but most of the rivers in this area are a tributary that are part of the colorado river. we need it for everything. we need for municipal use, to drink. we need for our houses. we needed for industry. we needed for money. and most important and the biggest water user is agriculture. we can't do anything without it. the land is very fertile and the growing season is very long so it's a great place to to agriculture even though it is ironic it's a desert. at you have to bring water here and that is the reason why we use the colorado. it's out it was first seen as an important source when this whole region was first settled, because people recognized that they could tap the colorado river and redirect its flow. the federal government regulates the operations of the dam, there

are seven major dams on the mainstream of the colorado river, and a dozen or so others on its tributary. the bureau of reclamation which was formed very early in the 20 century part of the reclamation act of 1900 to is a body within the interior department that is in charge of overseeing dam operations up and down the river. i also operate dams on the other rivers as well, but the colorado river is almost exclusively the bureau of reclamation's coming. so that's what the federal government gets involved. at the same time you have lots of competing interests, the states themselves have a certain amount of rights to control how their allocation of water is used and distributed. they fight amongst themselves. the longest supreme court case in american history was about the colorado river. throughout most of the 1950s was finally settled in 1963. a big fight between arizona and

california over water, how much did they get, how much do they have a right to. there have been a few lawsuits prior to the time by arizona against california. the major argument was that california believed, hoping to get as much water as possible, california believed that they were entitled to more than their 4.4 million-acre share, that's how we measure the water out here, how much water can cover an acre of land. it is the largest share of the river. but they believed they were entitled to more, and that certainly arizona was not entitled to a full 2.8 million-acre. does not as much agricultural usage of the river going on in arizona at the time of the compact back in 1922, which remained law, which remains law governing who gets how much water. and california said, well, they need to give us some of the water, they should have all but. because the gila river runs all

the way through the state. so the water that they pull off the gila river as was another source of water, is all part of the colorado. so we have to subtract that amount of want and what is left is their shared. arizona of course said are you kidding? no. refused to sign the compact for a lot of years, not until just before the treaty with mexico. the disagreement was still there. california was saying, no, arizona can't build that canal that they want to build. and federal funding was blocked for because california played that would take away water that they needed. hence, the lawsuit. once it finally was settled, that judgment did come down in favor of arizona. the decision and said, no, you can't count the tributaries in arizona. they are entitled to the full 2.8 million-acre feet of water. if they can build a canal big

enough to bring it, they can do. california had no choice but to accept that judgment and understand that they would have to live in the 4.4 limitation. but what happens after that is interesting. as soon as the decision is made of course airs and starts thinking okay, let's build a canal but you have to federal funding for a project that large. so they tried funding in congress for, and at that point california once again worked to block funding. in the in arizona had to almost give up some of its game in his lawsuit. yes, it was granted the rights of the full 2.8 million-acre feet, but in order to persuade congress to giv get the money fr the central arizona project now, arizona had to agree that we have the most junior rights, ethic and now the would be built off first anytime a shortage. so arizona knows this. they are not happy about it.

there's always been an anchor at california about them having better rights, more priority rights. but the real valley began to divert the water first, so their water, water rights are much more senior than ours. however the good uses for arizona, the good news is everyone realizes we can't just cut arizona off. at least here we hope that they realize that. in the research for my book i found lots of examples of attempts to make agreement about sharing shortages. it's not an easy thing to do. but just since last november 2012, there has been progress. we give mexico about 1.5 million-acre feet, and that's a treaty between the united states and mexico. so arizona, having a most junior rights to the colorado feels

upset about that situation saying, well, why should mexico always get their 1.5 million-acre feet because of the treaty, while we have to have a shortage, while less water will run down, and the shortage sharing would cascade? they have a plan in place for shortage, and yet arizona would still take the first cut, but they're negotiating to try to minimize that. california understands it will have to share in some of this. if you just take prior appropriation law, the way it is later, arizona would simply suffer and then maybe somebody next, whatever the most junior right, it probably isn't colorado because some of those projects are much more recent, utah as was nevada. las vegas would really suffer. but california has the most senior rights. so that is part of the thread between arizona and california over the years.

and california has understood it will have to give up some of its water in time of drought as well. we all will. california gets the biggest share of the colorado river, even though a lot of that what is pumped out of the watershed to los angeles throughout imperial valley for a huge agricultural bread basket of america. so they will have to cut back, but it's not really clear as yet how that's going to go smoothly. the good news is, we're talking but that's about as far as it's gotten. the our interim guidelines for shortages. the bureau of reclamation back in 2003 sent to the states, okay, if you don't come up with an agreement, then we will make it for you. if you don't want us to decide who has the shortage and who doesn't, how we are going to manage this, then all of you get together for once and sit down and negotiate. that's what has really started the process of profitable talks between the states in the basin.

that's been very helpful. and i think another good thing that finally we are bringing mexico into the conversation, we left mexico out. we like to think back in the early 20th century and throughout most of this, that since the river started in the united states it was all ours. nevermind that it used to flow into mexico. all of us will and do have to sit down and talk. it's really unclear how the shortages will really play out, but i think everybody understands that it's only fair to share. we will try to do that. >> this book has been a fascinating project for me and i've been interested in rivers for a very long time. grew up on the banks of a river, and looking at the importance of this river in the southwest has been a fascinating experience. it's an odd sort of river. it's really a plumbing system for a big garden hose really, if you want to think of it that way. we have put lots of straws into it to tap the water, so that's

been a fascinating story. so it's story over time, the human relationship with the river, can provide a microcosm i think of it very much larger picture of the human relationship to the environment. we have no choice here in the southwest. we have no choice but to figure out how to create a sustainable relationship with the colorado river. without the hoover dam we wouldn't be here. without the canal to bring the water to was we wouldn't be here. this is a desert. goal, there'll be a few people there but not all of us certainly. the great megalopolis that has grown here in phoenix and los angeles, all of those areas would not have the growth if we don't pay attention to the importance of using the river anymore sustainable way. that's been a huge challenge, and i look at 100 years of a rivers history, and i've only seen some real hope toward the

end of that 100 years, and beyond, in the 21st century we are starting to pay attention, somewhat crisis before we actually look for reasonable solution. but look at the whole picture, looking at the whole history of the river helps us understand, yes, why we exist the way we do here in the southwest. and also others understand the role of rivers, surface waters in arid regions in other parts of the world. but it also gives us a larger picture, a piece of a larger picture of how humans relate to the environment and the stresses and strains that come along with the political fight that hamper creating a sustainable relationship. all of the barriers that stand in the way of making better use of our national resources. and we can look at what didn't work, plenty of that, but we can also look at what did work and what is working now and what

kind of changes we can make. i think it sends a fabulous example for river, watersheds throughout the world. >> now from mesa, arizona, thomas wilson recalls the origins of mesa as a mormon settlement. >> mesa got its start, sort of an outpost sent by brigham young from utah. originally supposed be part of a trail of settlements between utah and mexico and, indeed, that's what it was. so the first pioneers sent by brigham young in 1877 and settled in lehigh, a suburb of mesa. they had the same trouble adopting to the climate as anybody else, particularly before we got air conditioning. so naturally they built their homesteads and farmsteads, begin cultivation and became building canals so they could live. but naturally in the summers

they would get pretty hot. so they would do things like build porches where you could sleep. they would put sheets around the building or around windows so you could get early type of cooling. we're talking about here between 1877, and into the end of the twin century. so climate in arizona has always been a challenge, but it's always been one of the settlers and pioneers have been willing to meet just as the prehistoric people did in the valley of the salt river valley. the way they started their community, they were small farming communities. they were almost like villages. they didn't even achieve town sides to begin with. but water from the beginning was an issue. the salt river of course provide a lot of water to the early settlers but what they had to do was figure out how to get water off the river and into their fields for crops and also for domestic use.

they built a series of canals and it is still those canals we use today to get water around the valley. but those canals were built really on the basis for following the route quite often that the prehistoric people have built in prehistoric times, before 1450 a.d. so when the first pioneers got here, they made use of the prehistoric canals, cleaned them out and enlarged them perhaps and used that model to build the own canals to and as i say we are still using those to be. lehigh, a section with settle in 1877. the following year, 1878, i thee was another group sent from utah called the mesa company. the first was called the utah company. they settled in what is now central mesa. basically where we're doing this interview. but also about the same time phoenix and tempe were also settled. but they were a small committee at the time as well. we are talking a very small, even in 1900, 30 years after

mesa had been settled, the population of mesa was still under 800. in 1910, the population was only 1600. even at the time of the end of the second world war, beginning of the sidewalk or those only 7000 people there. now it's 450,000. it gives you a sense of the expenditure growth that we've had. and a mesa is a the 38th largest city in the train it with a population of about 450,000. to some degree it's grown because it's in the phoenix metropolitan area which is well over three and a half million. one of the largest metropolitan areas in the united states. but nevertheless, mesa is developing a diverse economy. originally a grew up around agriculture of course. they're still in agricultural sector but it's by no means the most important. now we have aviation, a lot of modern technology companies,

and, of course, tourism has always been an activity in mesa. so it's a more diverse economy now. as i say, fairly robust economy given the economic downturn that the whole country has recently experienced. i think it's extraordinary important to know about the history of the city you live in, because it in some ways has cheated its future but it gives you perspective that earlier governments made. atg about the history of the country as well as about the history of your community. but it points the way towards the future. it also gives you warnings. for example, water has been crucial for people selling in the desert from the time of the prehistoric indians to today. it is still as critical for us as it was 2000 years ago when native americans were living here. we can look at their adaptation and look at the adaptation of the early settlers and we can look now at the need of an urban population area that's going to be almost 4 million very

shortly. so sustainability, land use, water use, the things we need to know about and the past gives us a clue as to how we ought to make decisions about our future. >> booktv recently visited mesa, arizona, without of our cable partner, cox communications. don critchlow gives the history of the conservative movement in hollywood. his book is "when hollywood was right: how movie stars shaped american politics." >> conservative movement started really in the post-second world war period. although there were early examples of conservative activity in the 1920s, the 1930s, but you need to remember that hollywood was and always is about making money. so the early studios were primarily concerned with getting

established, making a lot of money. by the 1930s when the great depression came, we see in california particular resurgence of democrats, and in 1930 for a socialist, well-known author, upton sinclair was able to win the governor's nomination, or the nomination for governor for the democratic party. and the studios, hollywood studios went really desert -- berserk with a socialist coming into office. one thing, sinclair was talking about nationalizing the film industry. so the studios, people such as louis b. mayer, the warner bros., and others, poured money into an anti-sinclair campaign.

and they were able to defeat him in 1934. so that's the beginnings of conservatism and republican activity. so by the time of the second world, in the post-second world war ii period, the republican party was really in complete disarray, factionalized. so what i explain and explore in my book was hollywood, with small group of movie stars, studio moguls, and california businessman got together and rebuild the republican party, ultimately electing ronald reagan as governor and as president in 1980. the movie stars such as john wayne, robert montgomery, robert

kehler, barbara stanwyck, many of these names are not known by your younger viewers. walt disney who is well known for his cartoons, his disney studios. and then a group of businessmen, people like justin, who is founder of rexall drugs, walter knox who established knox berry farm, people like leonard firestone, erika the firestone family, and -- hair to the firestone family. they came in and decided to rebuild the republican party. democratic registration in california had far surpassed the republican party. and at the same time the republicans were very, very factionalized throughout the 1950s and the 1960s. so, in rebuilding the party it

meant putting money into the party into political campaigns. but there's also meant taking these well-known stars and sending them out to speak to civic clubs and fraternal organizations, republican clubs, throughout southern california. so robert taylor, for instance, was a big star in the day, was sent out to places like fontana, riverside. and people like ginger rogers is another republican who was sent out to speak to civic groups. well, primarily what brought them together is there were republicans concerned with the government, especially the expansion of the government during roosevelt's new deal in the 1930s. and so they wanted to scale back

government. they wanted what republicans always want, fewer taxes. but at the same time they were also interested in boosting the economy. making this, making the state of california a good place to bring business. so they were concerned with labor issues, especially the role of labor in the democratic party. and while they wanted small government they also wanted defense contracts. so they used republicans, such as former actor and dance man george murphy, who was at the tail end of his career, they used him as a lobbyist to talk to vice president richard nixon, who was then vice president of dwight d. eisenhower, to make sure that the eisenhower administration was sending defense contracts.

the republicans were quite successful, but -- in california. if you look at the very end, that is 1980, when the elect ronald reagan. in other words, one of the actors who was involved in this campaign to revitalize the republican party. but the ultimate success shouldn't belie the fact that they were, they had their ups and downs. there was infighting over candidates. in 52, some of the hollywood moguls, such as louis b. mayer and ginger rogers, and others, wanted a man by the name of taft to win the nomination. they didn't like eisenhower. and then in 1964 when barry goldwater, the senator from arizona, ran in the primaries,

actually some of the republicans, such as leonard firestone, supported nelson rockefeller who was seen as the eastern establishment. they thought that goldwater wasn't the best candidate, and he was supported by the far right who they didn't like. so it's the conservatives fighting on the far right. it's a sort of the republican party. then and today, fascism and fighting and political powers. today, the conservatives in hollywood, the republicans are trying to regroup. there some well-known stars that are conservative. they have tried to organize. many of the hollywood

conservatives today are libertarian, which is a good politics for hollywood because libertarians believe in individual freedom, but smaller government and less taxes, too. so anyway, i would say that the real story of "when hollywood was right" is in this period from, the 1940s, late 1940s up to 1980. but conservatives and republicans in hollywood still have a history of how they were able to regroup and have influenced on southern california's national politics. so there's history to be told, and maybe a history for those few republicans and conservatives in hollywood children. >> up an extra mesa, arizona, we

sit down with boundary adams, in her book, "eisenhower's fine group of fellows," she examines eisenhower's use of civilians in helping craft foreign and domestic policy. >> what role do civilians play in domestic and international politics? >> well, for advising purposes for president, and important role. and i think that eisenhower, president eisenhower did an excellent job in utilizing the resources of civilians. the 1950s was a time of tremendous technical change. with the tensions of the cold war, eisenhower had to rely on those experts in science, and technology, in government and politics to come together and give him sound recommendations for how to develop a strong national defense. because quite frankly the united

states is in new territory at this point in the cold war. how do we guard against a possible surprise attacks from the soviet union? what resources do we have where we don't have to tax the american people so heavily? so what eisenhower did was to use some of the best minds in president of mit and caltech and former state department employees and so on and so forth in order to give him recommendations to how to proceed. and doing that as an ad hoc committee they don't have a political date. they are not democrats and republicans forming, but rather they all have the best interest of the nation. and he didn't ultimately make his own decisions by having the civilian ad hoc committees help inform them. he was able to get buy-in from a lot of people. and have some humility that he didn't know everything in an age where technology was changing so

rapidly. a lot of these people have worked together on various other organizations, a lot of them came from world war ii. where the united states utilized some of the bigger engineering schools for the manhattan project, and so it's in that work of a people that experience serving the government even though not elected official capacity. his national street adviser was very well-connected and was able to craft really good committees. perhaps the most important would be one that happened in any part of his 10 years as president called the killing committee. technically it is a technological panel which killian was the chair. two things that came out of that committee was an emphasis on intercontinental ballistic missile technology, or icbm, program. what i said i would call bigger bang for your buck.

and probably what the audience is mostly with or have some rain -- name recognition is the u2 reconnaissance planes. that's where the united states was able to do these overflights, some members of the audience might remember the cuban missile crisis, and it was the first photographic evidence the soviet union was placing missiles on cuba. so that program came from one of these civilian ad hoc committees that eisenhower had spent how did they get along with the actual administration? >> depended on the committee. the first to committees that are looked at in my book got along very well. and eisenhower had a lot of oversight in taking to committee members and having known the committee members to the third committee kind of came to him from some political pressure. the third committee was looking at whether or not the united states federal government should

allocate resources for fallout shelters. eisenhower didn't leave the united states should. that that resource, that money should be used for active defense, not pass the conspicuous concerned with the kind of message was sent to both our allies and disobedient if we embarked on this massive fallout shelter program. and so that committee disagreed with eisenhower. and many of the members leaked information to the press, which indicated the united states was in the gravest danger. eisenhower had not prepared to our defenses were breached and that did not go over well with eisenhower. we could look at that committee at really the endpoint of the ad hoc committee. my interest in this topic when i was a graduate student stems from my interest in science and technology as used by

presidents. and then as i was revising my dissertation toward the manuscript, the war on terror had just begun. and i started to see a lot of parallels between the cold war and the war on terror and the challenges that george w. bush faced in terms of preparing for the long haul, something eisenhower spoke a lot of. and so begin to look at the role of civilians being played out in presidencies after eisenhower, and my conclusion is that each president really uses them differently. if the committee is really a reflection of presidential leadership are but one thing that really did surprise me was how good eisenhower was at creating a team spirit, and that came back to his early days at west point. and he really was personal. people like him.

he really felt, he made you feel like he was listening to you. your good ideas, they were valid ideas that he would consider those ideas. even if you had in mind what he was going to do, he really created a team spirit where everybody felt like they were contributing to his presidency. and that harkens back to his leadership as a general i'm sure, but i was really surprised at how much effort and coaches effort at that, make everybody feel like they were part of the same goal. the book's title is "eisenhower's fine group of fellows," but crafting national security policy that goes to the great equation. so what i want the reader to come away with is an understanding of how important it is to any presidency. and the great equation is that we need a high morale. we can't be scared to death. we can cower inside, afraid of a

biological attack or nuclear attack. but we also have to make sure our finances are in order. we can overburden the american people, paying for a heavy defense program. and then final we do have to make sure that our national security is secure, that we do have what we need without having the overkill. and for that it's a great equation and the difficulty for the president to make sure that we balance that high spiritual morale, financial responsibility, and yet still have strong defense. >> donald fixico gives a history of indian gaming and its impact on the community. is a local mesa, arizona, author who sat down with us with the reason that he to the city with our partner, cox communications. >> the reason for this book kind of came about, i was on this reservation in a conference. thethere were like 20 of us from

arizona state university, administrative and mostly faculty sitting in a meeting. one side of the wall, was class and i was looking out and we lt me out and kind of zoning out because it was a long meeting. and when i saw was an armored car leaving the reservation. and you can imagine that it was coming from the private casino going to a bank. and i thought, how ironic as i said then began to ponder that, that if you imagine 100 years ago, 100 years, maybe more, the late 1800s when indians in population had dropped below 238,000. it was the thought that indian reservations were indians, to the more going to finish the we were called the vanishing once. so it was the wagons that brought food and supplies onto the reservation, and 100 years ago while food and supplies to this reservation right here, in 100 years later, in 2013, using

a armored cars leaving the reservation of the wagon, the vehicle has literally turned 180° around, you can imagine. indeed it is one of rebuilding, strategically doing that. and so it's been quite a chore for the gila indian reservation community, and other indian nations, too, that is gone into the indian any operations. there are a lot of native communities here, in fact there are 20 different indian tribes, indian nations in arizona. and arizona is quite a large day because arizona in all of its investment, there's actually the percentage is like 20% of the total land of the state of arizona belongs to indian tribes. so you can imagine that the southwest is a very difficult place to live that you can see there's a lot of desert. is a very harsh land, and the

interesting part is that maybe people have learned how to survive in this area. the first part of it is really the natural resources. because water in particular the cold, uranium, oil was under their lands. and so in developing those, and it was really a difficult decision because the tribes were faced with what have you and why should you harvest the natural resources from mother earth quick so it would against much of their philosophies and the relationship with the earth. because they learn to adjust and get things on the earth, like a mother in that sense. well, very strategically and good marketing organization, good leadership, effective leadership, they were able to manage their resources. then you have something else the kind of comes along in the beginning of the 1970s. and interest only beginning with the florida symbols to the florida summer for the first to come up with unregulated indian gaming. what that meant was that as

other types saw them, then actually traveled to florida to see and watch and learn from the seminoles, how did you guys do that in starting in indian gaming operation which was being built at the time. well, suggestions back to connecticut, they recognized, obtained trust land which was a former reservation headed against trust status, then began to build any operations which have since developed into the largest gaming operation in the entire world. so from budget other drives imitating and using examples of the florida seminoles and also in foxwood. then you have what you see behind me right here, a tribal casino. the interesting part of this, the building of the indian nation is that most tribes who enter indian gaming operations

cannot 60. in fact, about 20% o of those wo going to be thinking gaming operations actually succeed, and out of the 20%, not that many, but several have done quite well like the gila indian reservation here. so it's really kind of good effective leadership and really kind of enjoy what you're doing in a very different world. in order to start something like this, indian communities have to actually have trust land. sonoma they have reservation, so they have to have a flag on the reservation but sometimes they go off the reservation to but that has to be land in trust status but just had the first step. they obtained land and put into trust status as a very longer process. sometimes it's opposed by community. sometimes it's above but even other indian tribes. but as that's done, after that

long procedure then you have read and the captain of any kind of resources to start any type of system. gaming operations that are stored in las vegas have financial backers. so that our people like harris casino operation, they have backed quite a few indian tribes starting their initial indian operation. the interesting part is the financial backers want a clear profit. so whatever the tribe makes, like for the first year, and they take a certain percentage, like 40% or even 60% of the revenue, while the tribe is left to pay the bills. security, road construction, the jack parts -- jackpots, everything has to be paid for money. so the tribe has to deal with it. so once they get over the hump of building a building, constructing something like this, something like this would've taken years to develop. you have to design and plan,

start on a smaller scale and build another community that is even larger. what we have now in 2013 is actually kind of indian gaming like the second day. so the smaller dingoes come you don't see them anymore. you see larger resorts and more plush resorts. the interesting part is tribes are thinking and they have these casino meetings every about how to go into electric gaming. because people are now kind of wanting to do gambling in two or three different ways at once. so they're looking at electronic boards like ipad or something like that so they can be two or three different things, bet on two or three football games or basketball games at the same time. so gaming in itself has gone into another kind of style or way of gaining and tribes are looking at that at the same time. ..

>> so that's one way. now, the other way is that a lot of the tribes who are successful at gaming take that revenue, and they invest it back into the tribe. scholarships, education because native leaders realize that education is really kind of the key to the future and especially for their youth. so they do that quite a bit. programs for the elderly, programs that are for debittal, medical -- dental, medal, all kinds of things like that.

sometimes going to hotels, sometimes even starting a bank itself. so the florida seminoles, for example, have actually purchased the chain of hard rock café except for two franchises of it, i mean, two sites of it, in london and another one, i don't recall, but they actually own the entire chain. so they're looking ahead and seeing what's profitable. and this is indian capitalism. indian captain lift in a very different way, i think, from mainstream because it's still part of the moral economy idea x the moral economy idea is a concept concern as a concept is one of taking care of the community, that everybody who's a member of the tribe who lives in the community, like on the reservation here, they're making sure that the native people who belong to this community have services; health, dental, educational opportunities so they're taking care of their people. it's much like the state of arizona or any other state or even a corporation that you work for, you know, they would have

benefits for that. so indian gaming tribes were successful, then in turn can provide benefits to their people and take care of them that way. well, there's always controversy surrounding any gaming, and really i think phrasing that question another way, there's always some type of suspected controversy around any type of gaming, not just indian gaming. and a lot of the criticism is, well, you know, tribes are making money, but they're making it in a bad way. they're making it at the expense of people who can't afford to gamble. but you can ask the same thing of las vegas or atlantic city or any other place that legalized gambling. so there's always that type of of controversy. there's also rumors, well, that there's organized crime that's involved in indian gaming and really that's been studied and proven that it's not. that's not to say that there could be, but it's been proven largely that that's a false rumor. so so indian gaming does have its criticisms, but if you think

about it, anything that is successful as an organization, as a program or even as an individual, there are alls going to be rumors or criticisms of that people who do, in fact, succeed. when people read this book, what i want them to see is look at the glass being half filled. half full and not the bottom half, but the top half of optimism that look at the success of tribes in rebuilding their nations. but a little bit more than that, because if you look at the metaphor of the glass, tr glass being half full, let's move it to an indigenous context. an indian environment like a water gourd. so the water gourd in which, you know, that was a drinking vessel a long time ago for a lot of tribes, a lot of indian people, then let's look at the water gourd being half full. and look at the optimism and all the positive things. the rebuilding, the triumph over

tragedy that indian nations have done, and you see that. you can also look at some reservations who have not done well, but so off america has looked at the reservations and from the historic stereotypes there are 34 stereotypes about american indians, and all 34 are negative. historically rooted, but there are also as many as six that are neutral. and there are six that are positive. so when you think about the history of the united states and american indian tribes, it's really one in which people came here from europe and different parts of the world and colonized and tried to vanquish native people who were fighting patriotically. they weren't resisting. resisting what, colonization? no, they were patriotically trying to defend their homelands. so in trying to defend their

homelands in a patriotic way, of course there's this conflict in the people who write the history x. the people who wrote the history were largely, you know, nonindian people. so that's one of the reasons for this book. let's look at the water gourd being half filled. >> and now from our recent trip to to mace saw, arizona, author gary stuart delves into the 1991 case of the mass killing in a buddhist temple outside of phoenix. this program does contain images that some may find offensive. >> invest earth removed the bodies tonight on the nine victims. they still have n idea who committed the murder. >> can you tell us how they were killed in. >> it appears all gunshot wounds. >> was it execution style? >> we'll reserve comment on that. >> seven buddhist monks, one woman and one teenager found dead this morning.

bill's wife went to the temple to give food to the monks. >> all the monks were dead. i don't know. >> authorities don't know how many people were involved in the massacre of the monks. detectives say whoever did this just walked into the temple, but took no money from a money tree near a prayer room. the buddhist temple has been here for three years. worshipers claim the monks spent most of their time playing alone. >> monks don't have nothing against nobody. monks are everybody's friend. so i can't get nothing out of this. >> investigators have called in -- >> there was a massacre at a buddhist temple and monastery on the west side of phoenix. nine people were killed, executed actually. it's, i use that term on purpose because the way that they were killed was clearly an

execution-style killing that took more than 20 minutes to complete start to finish. so it's something that everybody remembers is how long it took and how difficult it must have been not just for the victims, it was difficult to accomplish this. one of the temple workers came to the temple about 10:00 in the morning. she and a friend of hers, and their job was to fix lunch or the monks. they did it almost every day. and when they came in, they thought when they first saw -- they came in the same door that the sheriffs did a little bit later. they thought that the monks were asleep. but what disturbed this lady the most was a nun was lying on the floor with them. and that's absolutely taboo, that couldn't take place. it was manager that was so astounding to her that she started screaming, but she

didn't know why. the other lady saw the blood, and there was a massive pool of blood because it spreald, but it didn't spread far because it was blocked by the bodies. so they both turned around, they ran out. they didn't think to call from there, they ran to the closest neighbor's house. and the neighbor dialed 911 for them, and one of these young women, she was in her late 20s, he said to the 911 officer, "they all die, same place. all die, same place." and she went into -- and began cry, she became quite hysterical after giving that first statement. it was exactly 30 days before they had a viable suspect of any kind. what makes that a startling fact was that this was not a

low-level investigation. they created a task force of officers from different agencies, many of them state agencyies, the department of public safety for arizona, the city of phoenix police department and many others, but notwithstanding that enormous effort, 30 days went by with lots of interviews and tens of thousands of fingerprint tracings taken from the crime scene. blood evidence, forensic evidence of a variety of different kinds, but they had no suspects 30 days later up until september 10, 1991. well, they got two calls on the same day within an hour apart. the first call was identified on the call lead book which is a large book that kept track of all these, this was lead number 510, 510. that call came from a luke air force base security officer who

had just been informed that morning that the sheriff's office in phoenix in maricopa county, was looking for a .22 caliber rifle in connection with this shooting. unfortunately, by mistake a memo went out to all the police agencies in the state except luke air force base which was the closest one. but because it's an air force police department, they just weren't on the list. so they didn't know that they're looking, that the sheriff's office was looking for a .22 caliber rifle. that security officer told the sheriff's deputy that he talked to that they had picked up two young kids, high school kids, on base driving around on base with a .22 caliber rifle in the backseat. and they stopped the kids and interviewed the kids and took the gun away. that was the first call. their names were alex garcia and

jon man doody. -- jonathan doody. what happened logistically at that point was a sheriff's deputy went out to luke air force base and talked to the same person that he'd earlier talked to on the phone, secured a copy, a written copy of their report and realized that the gun had been given back to these boys. and so he then had the addresses of both boys. they both lived within a mile of the temple. they both went to high school in a small town close to that. and he found one of the two, one of the two boys. it's the one that had the gun, the .22 rifle. he asked the boy if he knew anything about the murders, and he said, no, he didn't. he asked him if he had a .22 rifle, he said, i do, but i borrowed it from a friend. the deputy asked him if he could take the gun for testing, and

the boy said, sure. the sheriff's deputy left there, went back downtown where the sheriff's office had its main office and announced that he had the murder weapon. he wasn't serious, he was kidding. -a jocular kind of thing -- it was a jocular kind of thing, but he made that announcement.

>> in the meanwhile, we've got the officers traveling at high speeds with red lights glaring all the way i from phoenix to tucson -- all the way from phoenix to tucson to talk to the person who'd called in on lead 511. well, the man in tucson told the tucson police department that his name was john, which he admitted was an alias. later, in a second conversation, he told them his name was kelsey, and then he told them it was lawrence, and much later, hours later he told them it was kelsey lawrence. by then the two officers, the two deputies from phoenix had arrived in tucson and were somewhat surprised to go to his address which was the tucson psychiatric institute. that's a mental hospital in

tucson. the caller was a patient in the hospital. he didn't work there, he was a patient. he was in there because of relatively serious mental problems. they interviewed him in the presence of one of the hospital nurses, and he told them that he and four of his friends -- that was the first story, four -- had done these crimes. and he offered to tell them in whatever detail they wanted to know whatever it is that they wanted to know. they asked him if he wouldn't mind riding back up to phoenix in the car with them. he wanted to know if they were going to turn the lights and the siren on. they said they weren't sure about that, but once they told him that they might, then he said, fine, let's go. so they got back to phoenix pretty close to midnight that night. it was a tuesday night, september the 10th was a tuesday.

and from midnight through the next morning about 8:00 they learned a couple of things. finally, in the wee hours of the morning, one or two a.m., they learned that -- the officers learned who were interrogating him at this point that he didn't exist. no such person as kelsey lawrence or lawrence kelsey or mike kelsey. he finally admitted that his name was mike mcgraw. so now late in his first transcript they're calling him mike mcgraw, and he identified over the next six or seven hours on tape, on audiotape -- all of it clear on the tape -- he identified two different cars, six different guns, eight different people, multiple motives and multiple fabricated places where they went, one of

which was true -- none of which was true. the names of the boys were true, they were all friends of his. they lived in the same area, the same part of tucson, i recall, south tucson, south park, but none of them, only one of them had ever been here before. but he identified all of them. so they asked him if he would mind going back down to tucson with them and taking taking the officers and other officers because by now they're getting a s.w.a.t. team together, to the houses that these other boys lived in. and they weren't boys. one was 19, one was 20, two others were in their mid 20s, the oldest was 28. but they all knew one another, and so they were all arrested under somewhat difficult circumstances, by s.w.a.t.-team style arrests. they were all brought back to

phoenix in cars, they were all interrogated in a suite of rooms in the fourth floor of the maricopa county superior courthouse. they had set that up as task force headquarters. and the short story is over the next two and a half days they interdate -- interrogated all five of these boys. some of them knew the other boys were there, some of them department. but all five of them were interrogated. of that group, four of the five confessed on add yo tape to these crimes, these killings. and they confessed in significant detail the times and places and colors and shapes and who was in the room and what kind of a gun they had. they testified, confessed on audiotape to all of that, to a tag team of investigators who had taken two and a half days to accomplish this result. but in the end, it's five clear

cut confessions on tape, one person, one of the men denied they had any role to play. but the other four all implicated him, so they then formally arrested all five, took them to the the court, to the magistrate, charged them with nine counts of felony murder and first-degree premeditated murder, and once they were charged, this case was classified as a death penalty case, and that started a long process that they would go through. once that was done, then there was a second round of investigative effort to try to document and confirm in some way that these five young men, four of whom admitted the crime, one that did not, that they were actually the ones that did it. so they looked for testimonial and character references, all

the kinds of things you would do to follow up. the problem was that none of it worked. they all had solid alibis, none of them had police records with the exception of one young man. none of them had been to phoenix. and they all had recanted their confessions the second they got to the courthouse. they all said, no, we were interrogated and forced to say what they wanted us to say, and we didn't do this. they all four said the same thing. while that's going on, they got around to testing the gun. so when they tested the gun, the crime lab, the state crime lab called immediately same day they turned the gun in and said i don't know where you got this gun, but that's it. it's the murder weapon, there's no question about it. so they immediately went back out where they'd been before now, seven weeks before. they arrested the two boys. in fact, they arrested three.

the third one was a young man named roland or rollie as he was known to his friends. over the course of, once again, they arrested these people at night in the 7, 8, 9 p.m. at night. they interrogated all three of them in the same rooms, same officers using the same techniques that they had used on the tucson four, and now two of these three boys -- all juveniles -- confessed to the same crimes. so all of this became wide public knowledge in phoenix, and all the press knew, all the media knew, every lawyer in town knew. i was one of them. that there are two different sets of suspects, all of them have confessed, and it can't be the case that they're all guilty because both groups deny the existence of the other group. so at a point late in november

of 1991 the maricopa county attorney's office dismissed all the charges against the tucson five young men at that point, and they then focused heavily on the two boys that were, that did confess. and there was a fair amount of forensic evidence against one of them, that was alex garcia. they had evidence from him that was forensic in nature that could place him at the crime. besides that, he'd confessed. they had almost -- not almost, they had no forensic evidence against the other boys. theyed that a very -- had a very weak defense against him. so ultimately, what happened there was that they, the prosecutor's office offered a

plea bargain to alex garcia. and the reason they did that, at least in my opinion, but i got the opinion from the maricopa county sheriff's county attorney, so they gave garcia a plea bargain because they had a good case against him, and they could make it. they didn't have a very good case against doody. they needed garcia to testify against doody. so the plea bargain they offered him was if you testify truthfully at trial, then -- and if you plead guilty to nine counts of first-degree premeditated murder, we will take the death penalty off the table. that's all they were willing to do was to take the death penalty off the table. this is a 16-year-old boy. many would say not likely to get the death penalty anyhow, but whatever the case may be, they took that off the table. he agreed. he testified against doody at trial. they'd never offered a plea

bargain to doody, and they had no forensic evidence against him. what they did have is his confession. but his confession, he limited to the fact that he admitted to being there at the temple with garcia, and he said with roland as well. and during that time period, that's all they had was his admission of being physically there. so that's the case that went to trial, and it went to trial in the summer of 1993. they tried the case for about seven weeks over a three month period of time. at the end of the trial, the jury had to determine whether or not jonathan doody was guilty or not. they had no role to play in garcia's case. but garcia, of course, was the prime witness, the only witness against doody, so they had to test garcia's credibility not

against doody's testimony -- because doody did not testify at trial. they did play his very long 17-audiotape interrogation to the jury. so the jury heard all of that. but what they got out of that is all that there was to get, which is i was there, i didn't shoot anybody, i didn't kill anybody, i didn't have anything to do with these killings. i wasn't even in the room when it happened, but i was there at the temple. so against that, they returned a verdict of guilty, unanimous verdict of guilt on felony murder only, and they acquitted him on first-degree premeditated murder. and the only explanation for that can be that they thought garcia was the shooter, not doody. so they rejected garcia's testimony. he wasn't before them as a defendant, but he was certainly before them as a witness.

the other thing that happened during the trial that made it a very unusual trial was that the defense lawyer for jonathan doody, a very able lawyer named peter balkan, mr. balkan called two of the tucson four to the witness stand in the doody case, and he read in evidence -- he didn't read it, but he admitted in evidence -- transcript of the confessions of all four. the argument that he successfully made to the judge was what better evidence could i possibly have of the innocence of my client, but the audiotape confessions and the written confessions, the transcripts of the confessions of four other people who say they actually committed the crime that my client denies he committed? so all the tucson four testimony came in evidence. all the officers who participated in the interrogations were called as

witnesses during the trial. and the culmination of all of that enormous effort was that jonathan doody was found guilty only of felony murder and acquitted of first of degree pre-- first-degree premeditated murder. but it was a capital case at that time. so under our law at the time, arizona law at the time, capital sentences were handed down by judges after a hearing. they weren't handed down by juries. today they're handed down by juries, but in 1991 it was done by the judge. so he conducted a capital mitigation aggravation hearing for jonathan doody. and at the end of that fairly long hearing, it was six or seven days, he rejected the state's demand for the death penalty, and he sentenced jonathan doody to 271 years in prison. on nine different counts.

each of the actionable counts were to be served consecutively. so the end result was 271 years. then he sentenced alex garcia on his plea of guilty, and he sentenced garcia to 261 years. so their terms, imprisonment terms were ten years apart. that, of course, started an appellate process. so in may of 2011, the court of appeals ordered that the state of arizona either release jonathan doody from its department of corrections, there prison, or get him a new trial. and the state elected to get him a new trial. so that's where the case stands today. that order came down in may of 2011. it's taken some time now. i think the current prediction

is that a new trial for jonathan doody will be held in phoenix, arizona, in the maricopa county superior court sometime in the summer of 2013. this coming summer. that's where the case stands today. >> how old is he? >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to mesa, arizona and the many other cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/localcontent. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. here's a look at our prime time lineup for tonight. beginning at 7 eastern, kenneth anderson joins us from american university to discuss his book, "living with the u.n. identities and fen then at 7:30, zeke emanuel talks about growing up with his brothers. at 9 on "after words," neil irwin author of "the alchemieses" sits down with david wes el of "the wall street journal," followed by lee

sandlin at 10 p.m. and we conclude at 1 with kristin hawkens. she describes the efforts of students for life for america. that all happens tonight here on c-span2's booktv. >> and now on booktv, former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor presents a history of the high court and profiles several of its former justices. [applause] >> thank you. now, i'm sitting down, so you can sit down. come on. that's good. i'm kind of hobbling around a bit. and so -- can you hear? is it all right? no? no. does this have to be turned on,

or what's the matter? right into it? oh, dear. [laughter] now can you hear better? >> yes. >> i actually didn't get an offer for my first job, so let's just get the introduction changed a little bit. [laughter] i happily attended stanford law school, and in the process, i met my husband-to-be, john o'connor. and he was a year behind me in law school. we decided to get married, and i graduated from the law school, and we both liked to eat, and that meant one of us was going to have to work. and i since i was out of law school, that was me. and i thought, oh, no problem getting a job. there were at least 40 notices on stanford's bulletin board at the law school from law firms in california saying stanford law graduates. we have this, um, we'd be happy

to talk to you about job opportunities, give us a call. and there were 40 different messages from different law firms in california on the bulletin board. so i called every one of those notices. not a single one would even give me an interview. i said why? they said we don't hire women. and that was the way it was. now, i got out of law school, i guess, about 1952, but isn't that amazing? they wouldn't even talk. and i really did need to get a job. i had heard of a place that had a woman. so i said that's encouraging, i'll go see him, and i made an appointment to see him. in california they elect the

county attorney, and so they're always glad handers, and he gave me an appointment to see him, and i went to meet him. he was very nice, and he said he had, indeed, had a woman on his staff one time, and she did well, and he'd be happy to have another. and i had a good resumé, and i'd be fine, but the problem he had was that he got his money from the county board of supervisors, and he got only so much money a year. and he had spent his money, and he had no more income for the year. so he was not able to hire anybody else. and he was so sorry, because he felt probably i could be hired, but not without any money. and then he said, also, i'll show you around the office, and he did, and he said as you can see, i don't have a vacant office to put another deputy. so i had to figure something out. and so i said, well, i understand, i said i know you

don't have any money right now to hire anybody, but i'll work for you for nothing until such time as the supervisors give you a little more money. i said i'll do that. well, that kind of took his breath away. finish. [laughter] and then i said, and i met your secretary. she's very nice. there's room in her office to put a second desk if she wouldn't object. and that was my first job as a lawyer. [laughter] no pay, and i put my desk in with the secretary. but i loved my job. it was so interesting. i just liked everything i got to do. it was very exciting for me. and so that's what i did. and it worked out fine. and i don't remember now how long b i was there -- how long i was there before he managed to find a little money in his account with the county. and until i think somebody, one of the deputies must have left

for another job, and it opened an office. so everything turned out all right. but it was pretty tough sledding getting that first job. and i felt sorry for the other women who were in law school and getting out and looking for work, because there was no real opportunity for women lawyers at that time. i'm reading the new book out by what's her name, sharon who? >> [inaudible] half half. >> yeah. yeah, i've been reading that. [laughter] and it's a good story. you better read it too. but it's amazing how things have changed, and i'm very glad that i was able to be a little bit of that change many -- in america for women. and i was working happily along

if my job -- in my jobs in arizona when i was sitting at -- i had had become a judge on the court of appeals, and i was in my office one afternoon, and the telephone rang. and i answered, and the operator said this is the white house calling, is justice o'connor there? i was a justice at that point on the arizona court. and i said, yes. and they said, well, it's the president calling. would you put her on? i said, well, this is she -- [laughter] hello. and it was ronald reagan on the phone. and he said, sandra? i mean, how about that? first name basis. [laughter] so i said, yes, mr. president. he said, i'd like to announce your nomination tomorrow for the supreme court, is that okay with you? [laughter] now, that's quote-unquote what

happened. [laughter] and i kind of gulped, and i said, well, yes, mr. president, i think it is. [laughter] and so that's what happened. [laughter] he had sent some, three people from the attorney general's office out to arizona to check on my record. i had served in some capacity or the other in all three branches of arizona's state government in the preceding years. and, of course, i'd left some kind of a track record behind. and i think the president had sent people out to uncover press coverage of anything that i had been involved with and to look at papers in connection with my record. and i guess they hadn't uncovered anything that looked scary. [laughter] so he decided to do that. and i was at home the day they

wanted to come out and really talk to me. and my husband and i had built a sun-dried adobe house in the phoenix area when we moved there in 1957. now, that was a real challenge because you can buy burnt adobes, they're sold commonly. but in this country today it's very hard to go buy sun-dried adobes. those are the adobe bricks that somebody has made and then dried them in a frame in the sun until they're dry and fairly firm. and that's what we wanted to use. and i met a man who lived on cattle track road in scottsdale, and he built some sun-dried adobe houses. and he could tell us how to get some sun-dried adobe. so we followed his advice and got some and found a starving young architect who was willing to design a house even if it was

with sun-dried adobes. and so we got this house built. and i just loved it. it was so fun. until you've seen and touched sun-dried adobe, you probably can't appreciate why i liked it so much. but it looks good, it feels good, and it's wonderful in arizona's sunshine. it really is. so that's what we used to build our house, and i loved it very much. and when the president made his call and i agreed to come back to washington, d.c., we learned that housing prices in d.c. are very high. [laughter] so we had to sell our little sun-dried adobe house and raise a little money so we could get something to live in in d.c. and we did. and that was painful, to have that happen. and an interesting thing has happened since, and i'll just -- i'm wandering from my topic, but it's kind of interesting to

hear. we have formed now, in arizona, a program using our old house. and so it's been purchased back by a nonprofit little organization to support to connor house house -- the to o'r house. and i like that. because in the years -- [applause] it's what we need a lot more of. congress needs that, state legislatures need it. and when i had that house, when my husband and i were living in it and i was a legislative leader, i would cook some mexican food of some kind, chalupas or something that says hot on the low burner of the stove, and i'd buy some cold

beer, and then i'd invite the key people on both sides of the aisle in the legislature and just have 'em come over to have a spite to eat and a beer. and when you sit around like that and speak casually in a friendly manner as you would with your own friends or acquaintances at your own house, you just feel better about knowing people and relating to them. and we were able to make friends enough that we could solve the state's problems. it worked. and that's what i'd like to see more of. and at present we're using o'connor house to get legislators together over beers and chalupas -- [laughter] and see if they can't get acquainted with each other and solve some of arizona's problems. and i think it's working. so that's the effort. and what i felt when i was if my

years -- in my years at the court before i retired was that, um, we were failing to teach young people in this country anything about how our government operates, how it runs. two-thirds of high school grads today score below proficiency on any kind of civics test. only one-third of americans can name the three branches of government, let alone say what they do. i mean, imagine that. only 27% can identify the purpose of the u.s. constitution, and it's right there in the title. [laughter] now, less than one-fifth of high school seniors can explain how citizen participation helps democracy.

only 22% of eighth graders can name any purpose met by the u.s. supreme court. now, that's very painful for we. [laughter] among 14,000 seniors in college which participated in a survey, the average score on the civics exam was just barely over 50%. that's an f. now, this lack of knowledge does lead to disengagement. about half of the 14-year-olds in the united states say that their political attitude is indifferent or alienated. they have no interest. and i just think that we have to reverse that. we ought to care about that in this country. when our constitution was adopted, we didn't have public schools in america. that came later. in fact, it was about 30 years

after the constitution was adopted that people began to say we need some schools in this country to teach the young people how this new government of ours works, how it's supposed to work and how they're part of it. well, they were right, we did need to educate the young people. and that's what started public schools. and today we are having public schools that no longer teach civics. they don't require them for high school graduation, classes in civics, they're barely taught. i don't know about you, but when i went to school, i went to grade school and high school in el paso, texas. i grew up on a ranch and it was too far from town to go to school. and my parents sent me off to el paso where i had maternal grandparents living. and so i took my schooling there. and we had civics all the time.

i got sick and tired of it, to tell you the truth. [laughter] but i think that's a lot better than having none. and so i was very concerned at the time when i announced my retirement about the lack of any nationwide attention to the teaching of civics. and so i decided that in my retirement that i'd have time to do a little volunteer work, and maybe i could get started a plan to teach civics. and so we -- i started something that we call i civics. now, we have i pads and ipods and everything, so i thought icivics would be good -- [laughter] and it is. and we got it going. and what i did was assemble the most wonderful group of teachers who really know the subjects and

what these young people -- particularly middle school up to first-year high school -- should know about civics. ..

it makes it harder for the teachers to find time to teach civics, but that has been my major effort since stepping down from the court, to start and continue and expand the teaching of the civics. we know half of that of a 30,000 yen and people they who are plugged in. i want a lot more than that. that's just the start. the university of texas did a study of it and took the program and put it in three or four schools in the area in taxes somewhat near baler elected in place for a while and then tested the students, and baylor came back with not a good review

, a rave review. is it is incredible. it really is effective. and so that is my major effort. that is our and spending my time has a retired justice, except that i also sit occasionally with some of the federal courts of appeal of. you know the federal courts consisted district courts where charles in federal cases are tried and then if loser appeals, the appeals goes to a federal court of appeals, and we have a number of federal circuit courts of appeal. they're scattered around the country. and i volunteered to set with some of those courts of appeal. and then if you lose their euro the application for relief is with the u.s. supreme court. their grant of jurisdiction is discretionary with the court and not too many cases are granted.

so that is how the system works today. endive volunteer periodically to set of one of the federal courts of appeal could hear a number of cases for two or three days. and today i went to the supreme court myself. i was here. i heard a case argued, and it just happened to be a case which i had heard as a volunteer judge when i sat on that circuit some months back and heard that case, and we rendered a decision, and the losers did not like the result and file the petition with the u.s. supreme court dough which took the case and it was argued today, and the pleasure of sitting in the courtroom and listening to the lawyers argue about the case that i have participated in deciding some months before a court of appeals level, so that was kind of fun to do, i have to

say. and i think what we have done tonight is to see if you did not have various questions that you felt you might like me to talk about. we will try some of them. if they don't go so well, i will go back and abandon those. [laughter] [applause] >> well i have similar questions >> i don't like having to turn my neck. [laughter] a lesson not to interrupt the one asking you questions. [laughter] can you describe what we are

thinking of the first andrew last time you walked to the curtain to take your place. >> the first time was pretty scary the last time you are used to it. the first time was really amazing. for i cannot believe that i was coming in fact, now serving as a member of the u.s. supreme court of course that had never before had a woman on the panel as judges. that was a this passion for the court. i think it made a difference. when i see the court today, as i do today and look up at the bench, i see three women. [applause]

there are also six men. >> in the traditions are rituals the door behind the scenes at the court and that you are fond of? >> oh, yes. i will start with the first. it is the practice of the court when you meet each day to go on the bench or to sit and discuss cases. for each justice to shake hands with every other justice. no, that is really special. i don't know how you feel about it, but to shake hands with someone, yeah, okay, to shake hands with someone is meaningful it really is. demi you touch their hand and iscake. it is much more effective than

to work together as a court and decide the cases. that was just marvelous. on that first day one of the justices was a justice -- [laughter] he was a former major athlete and he took my hand, and i thought i was going to die. i mean, honestly. tears. [laughter] spraying out of my eyes. there was nothing i could do. he killed me. it was byron white. do you remember who he was? my god, he was a professional football player. i don't know what else. he was amazing. he about kill me. and so i learned what to do. give me your hand. see what i'm doing?

agribiz them. [laughter] i did that for the remaining years that he and i were both on the court. >> i think will stand back here. >> female judges have a unique perspective? if so, in what way and how does it influenced? >> i don't think they do really. i mean, all for all male or female as the justice you have gone to law school, studied law. you have had some experience. maybe as a trial judge or a state judge or in your law practice, something. and so you come there with some experience that is shared with the men who have done the same thing. so i don't think you come in with some preset attitude or

experience that is vasougy different from that of all of the other justices. i really don't. >> well. >> it could be at some stage of some proceeding that as a former wife and mother i might look at some domestic relations case with somewhat different views then maybe it justice who has never been married or had children. that is possible, but i don't think by and large they you find many with totally different approaches. >> to you think that cameras iscould be allowed in the court while cases are being argued? >> that question is posed about once a year to members of the supreme court. i guess largely by media people who are accustomed to covering events of courts. and so far the supreme court has

not permitted cameras to come into the supreme court chamber. it probably d ps not matter m is.h . by night time every day it cases are heard at the court you can get a full transcript of everything that was said that state in the courtroom by the lawyers and the judges, the justices. it is all transcribed and available. it is completely at is ailable almost immediately, and i don't think that the absence of seeing that on the television screen as opposed to reading it in whatever form it comes out is that significant. peeeile are accustomed in this country to seeing everything of the television. so it is a litouge frustrating,i guess, for some to think it is not there.

i don't think it is a cause for major concern because of the fact that, in fact, it is there in writing. you can see what was said. >> what advice would you give a young female attoherey interestd in becoming a judge? >> oh, well, if you want to be a judge, first of all, you have to be a pretty good law student. you really need to approve that in law school and elsewhere you have established a record as someone who does understand and know legal princt cale and who n write well. that is very important because as a judge you a pro league ghlng to after right your opinion and expression shall fall. you want to be able to demonstrate based on articles the have written and publiisced, but she hyou rered and p the you have some capacity to understand legal issues and to

read about. that is very helpful in the selection of an appellate court judge. >> the court is said its lomas of partisanship. to you feel looking back at recent history, back to world war ii, partisanship is causing of civility and they? >> well, i don't think it's as bad as it may be was in earlier times in the nation's history. there really don't. when you look back in the l.a. is the country at thomas jefferson and some of the things that went on and the score when he was there, and john marshall was the chief justice with there were second cousins, approximately, maybe second it was remyou red. i and not sure. they were not the case in kind. [laughter] thwou did not like each other. it was really unpleasant.

yet they had many issues to resolve that affected our nation . is amazing that we got through all of the days and did welatio a bit of anything like that today. we have many cases where the justices may and then to sld bes and the bottom line usually there is some division of opinion of the court fifth in the early days of the country there was some real hostilities among some of the justices , and sources saikill >> what is the number one question that other justices the best you about being on the supreme court? >> well, they have not asked me an arhing. [laughter] go to work and do it. >> what should they asti you? >> i don't think therevil anything michele leslie.

maybe how the lunchroom works and how they can get better lunches. that would be the only kind of thing i could help the with probably. >> was there any decision you made the basin how it was interpreted or otherwise followed up that you now wish you had voted differently on? >> i don't look back. that is one thing i have learned that life to the very best you can every day with whatevehln3 problems you have to make a decision and then don't look ba. to. i don't look bacret i am sure i have made plenty of mistakes, but i do not need to look back at them. [laughter] i have been there and done that. >> here is another advice question. based on the state of the current job rk