>> well, i'm going to tell them that there wilng immediately have a kind of job that it would like because it seems to me there are more lawyers at is ailable for hire n there are jobs available for lawyers. it is tougher to get a jhr as a lawyer. it may be a more challenging chhlce of a place to work. i am sure of will even out over time, but if i were being asked that by someone who is in law school today i would tell them not to rush to get out because thwou might have a hard time getting a jhr. >> in cases that depend on science and technology and expertise howdy identify and then find such expertise? >> i don't have to do that as a judge.

i only have to decide each case based on the evidence presented to the court. and in the "out of order" appellate court, which the supreme court is, the evidence has been introduced and presented at the trial court level. the first court to hear the case. that is where the evidence comes in. it is a matter of recorkill it is in the record of that case. if you want to look back on the appellate court judge that what was it in the record at the time the case was resolved, it is all there in writing, all there in the record. >> we will any of the stories making it into your curriculum? >> in a new book? >> i doubt it. i would have put him in alrea3

. >> why do all of the big controversial cases come out of the end of the year? >> welng maybe the majority tend to come out of the end of the year because the cases the end up producing several occasions, both for and atroinst the decision, both o usnions supporting it and the those defending opinions that did not support it, and they require considerable racing to produce a defense or an opinion agreeing with the majority, but for different reasons, it takes a long time sometimes to write all those up. that means that often alas cases to be handed down for a term

tend to be the cases that have prod is.ed the most amount of writing because it's just is a entyor time to put all that the otheess >> one more question. what to you do to unwind after a particularly stressthe cal they? >> well, it is not my practice to worry about how town wind at the end of the day. i just -- i like to start my day with some kind of exercise. that is our like to start it. the first in that i do, the very first date that i got to the supreme court of the united states to my go on the telephone . i call the ywca here in wahe vington d.c. i talked to somebody there of the staff, and i astied if thwou could find someone who could come to the court and teach an exercise plan early in the a thering. they said they thought they could find someone and they did

and thwou sent a young woman thm . they stayed with us for a number of years. and on all but you, but i like starting with an exercise class. at the other was a great way start monday. a think the court still enjoys the privilege of having an exercise clariti early in the a thering. >> well, will you stay inside some books? >> welng there are too many people. i will sign until i give out. all right. anyway, it has been nice to talk to you? [applause]

>> visit booktv.org to watch any of the proopiams you see here online. set the author a book title in the seahey?h bar on the upper left-hand side of the page. you can also share anything you see easily by cli. toing share the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. book tv streams live o3 thiine for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. bookryonyrg. >> in this high textile age with high-definition television and is a radio still all we ever get is static. the veil of distortion and lies and misrepresentations and half for is that oof jcure reality. the dissident -- dictionary definition, criticism, eeientysition, and wanted interference, a media that covers power, not cyou rers for entywe, wh a media that is the

fourth estate, not for the state. when the med gi that cyou rers e a tvement that creates static in makes history. >> autho, wh host and make it tough domestic prothcer taking your calls the minimills, and facebook, its in-depth three hours live today at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> and now chi cr judge of the u.s. court of appeals diswas rrg the late robert bork's last look saving justice, watertrote, the saturday night massacre and other ventures of the solicitor general. finihe ved writing the drarec of this book prior to his death in december to c-span. this is a lit for ae under an hs >> we are gathered to discuss a his final book, serving justice.

i am here because i worked as one of his assistants for two and a half years. we were friends between 1974 and his death last fall. but i need to open with a confession. i cannot say very much about the book. i will talk instead about the man and the solicitor general. the reason i cannot say much about the book is that its principal fgaus is his first six a tnths on the job. when he wrote the brief that persuaded someone to plead guilble and resigned as vice president. when he persuaded the supreme court to stop justice douglasvil crusade in the u.s. from prosecuting the vietnam war, when he fired ahey?hibald cox as the watergate special prosecutor and when he served as acting attoherwou general for three a tnths between the time to elliott resigned and william was

apentyinted. it is not bad for one's first six months on the job. the title, saving justice, comes plom bhrvil decision not to resign after the saturday night massacre which, by the way, he things should have been called the saturday night involuntary manslaughter. bob believe that the president has the authority to control everyone in the el thwas rtive h and to fire insubordimanyte personnel. cox had proclaimed his insubordination on natiomanyl t. whether a president is wise to exercise that authority is for history to decide. attoherwou-general richardson hd promised the senate that he would maintlain a special prosecutor in place. he thought, therefore he had to resign when nixon astied him to fire che m.

and wt he had not made any such promise. he thought that the president was entitled to dig his own grave if he insists. he also thought that he should not glain by the d crense of the should not appear to be a toady. so he plans to fire che m and qt . the deputy aothorney general talked about a resignation. there was no line of sistceritin and the dy suartment of justice after a solicitor general. so if he had walked the plaotho the permanent justice would have been leaderless. no one knew who the president might install. richardson and bork of year that it would be a political show lee lee aritiistant aothorney generl and much of the department's senior leaders to resign and . >> aipple the dy suarht tent. so he's saved justice by staying had he quit in protest the

lkblic would have been treated as a national hero and confirm to the supreme court ingat987. perhaps he would have been appointed by president ford in 1976. he was on the list that was sent to prison of four possibilities. had the. >> the nation as a whole will suffer. heat was so determined not to benefit that he turned down an eeientyrtunity to be appt'nted s attoherwouraneneral. he turned down a chance to work plom the more eletront olkbice. he ajob. to private dining room and even c-hered down the aothorne6.genel is show for a limousine bearing time he was acting attorney general i can't say misth more. thwou occupy the last six months of 1973, and that it not arrwoue in the olkbice until midgatd to.

everything he says in his book he said and that is every four to. the pbook ino e who worked withm most closely, such as edmonton keith tell the same story. and his narration in the book is entirely consistent with the man that i knew for 40 years. considering consequences before acting and absolutely honest. he is ad ever met. that did not come through in his 1987 hearings, but the book is full of is what the lt he of the solicitor general is reactive. other people decide what s anyts to bring. the snd the government's presentation, petitions to file, resentynses o pile, or argument. the solicitor general also

decides when the gyou rernment l appeal an adverse decision by district court or seek a rehearing in the court of appeals. the solicitor general as a party to decide when, if at all, the needs in the court of appead it is a broad portfolio and requires a large base of aoowledge, pdvs the aticelibleo learn fast. the solicitor general does not control who litigates about what and does not start the process within the justice department. cases that aletwou e are farmedt to litigating divisions, land and natural resources. thwou make recommendations which go to the sg systems and deputies, sometimes there is an inteheral conflict. there want to olkbend.

the civil-rights division to as to favor the presence. somebody has to resnd the solicitor general has to resolve those iritiues persoman. he conducted many conferences, not only to settle for less than the gyou rerateent but it is onf the olkbices traditions that anyone, a litigant, a potential america's calety are to be heard dso the snd personally before a brief filed. bob prepared car crulon. a vast qch he tried to address the positions of the el thwas rtive mebanch, not his ojo use.

his sistceritiors to intended to argue between five to ten cases a year, up bob. he lyou red to gwou e and tlears heater of his feet. often the main task of an adjob. to find a norn a3 19ument to replace the bad one that lost the case of the court of appead sometimes the task of an oral advocate is to patch up the holes in an a3 19s the presented in bri cr, trying to o either. the justices are apt to say something like, well, you did not make this argument earlier.

why don't you just myou re alon. it tleares gravitons to get the justices to listen. the first time i saw bob an action he had to paper over a vee be bad argument. congress had taken over the baothoruar, easteher rlailr brc, me3 19ing them to form conrail and amtrak. the railroads sued, contending that the law was unconstitutional and should be enjoined. the lead a3 19s the filed by theto snited states, nt vetted carefully because there had not been any in gyou reratet was that conhess and the interstate commerce commission had flailed so o or geeration of r brcitor that y just had no rights at all that thwou were entitled to rely of. the problomm with this argument is that if it were to prevail congreriti would pass a stac-te of jnd

claiming a right to do anything it pleases the time it wanted with abob one of thve tor prope. the justices were not about to and wy that. the snd oral argument and scuffled the may position in the bri cr. he withdre iit on his feet and advanced a different position, that the tucker act would pryou ride any compensation dch that the statutes could not be enjoined. the sentynsor of the legislation had been given time to understand. understeer the orito prtucl cha3

19ing --to snderstood the orito prtucl argument that it required in these. all they caravel was the arartment about the tucker act representative adams tried the eme it -- free himself from that team by telling the justices that the house and senate be reeen them had not fought a a tment about,he if should forget about that tujust er act. it applies on was ry suealecito they told the court that had not come up in this session. herevil another example. the year after he left the solicitor general's office he

issued a credit card which caletied something that was legl in the state where the bank had its headquarters with the lre tl in states where customers used the card. the iriti anyng bank was sch rioffl bank it ill interstate, and is rival contended that he sure wasto ssing its lgaation to they injury to the rival by stealing customers. the rwou al that the first theywas rmented for evee bethin- it seems to be going his way. one softball qch another. then bob stood up and opened now with the legal a3 19s the observation about economics. if the issuing bank really was charging excessive interesrom interest higher than a rwou al bank. doing a favor. consumers co hasd s rioffd

maybe the issuing bank was charging higher interest because it was tlearing a riskier was rstomers, customers or less likely to repay, but in that event evee beone became a custor with a poor credit that would get to the high interest. everybstay wo hasd have some and wsineriti and everybody woue better off. then he proe beoced this lineat it starthe send it to the right specialists. after that beral have the justis seating of his hand. it did not take the court were to iritich his favor. i have never seen a case turned around so neatly by an appellate adjob. let me come down to a three case studies about the role in form hasatinit rthe gyou rerates

entysition. the first is one that the supreme court never decided. the boston usehond dispute. in saving justice he says that he first came to the nixon administration's attention after writing an article saying it court slaid you rerused bus tranor.ortation and school desegregation cases. a desp iption about a meeting of the white house. his discussion of a supreme court decision inareritied neran which led to his elkbort to drat legislation and cooperation with professor charles alan wright. what fnd from today's perspective is that the president himsesit redra the bill b crore it was sent to congress. when he became snd mabob school cases for preritiig pretension. he issued a careless opinion

that monwou princund les fnd dso another the proved inflammatory. bob wanted to set things straight. the fundamental divide the time was between people who equated all rn tiial balance to an wantd courts to order racial balance. people who thought that the constic-tional limits of lefveherment use of race excepts a remedy for racial violations. of a prioffte drugs led to in balance, there was no violation. litigation involves an ideal or geentyrtunity for this contrt and to reach the supreme court. the district judge in the court of appead that racial imbalance in the schools was itself a constic-tional wrong in the hood be remedied by every class everywhere in the school srytem have the same ratio of bln tik d white students. that required a lot of trust petition.

the real iritich not the means. many groups asked the snd general to supentyrt the school board and tell the supreme court said grant it in reverse. at the direction i wrote a bri r contending that judiciary's goal is to undo the cost to about consislach discrimination cannot undo the consequences of prioffte choicet no one in the preriti, attorney-general took an interest. herevil the problomm. the usehond contempt of court by defining some aor.ects of the district courtvil iokunal tion. many residents in gazed in violence. this supentysedly liberal city d beartn to aal t like a rock in 1958. the mayor was sounding l me

orwellvil wallace. what should the united states do? there was a serious intelleal tl prerallem. and wt when he asked the supreme court to vindicate his legal entysition which is mine as wel, in a way that would appear to give support to defiance and vind was held in attorney-general levy's office on the last da wr3 theto snited states could file a mebief. copies have been printed. they were ready to go. attoherwou. ineneral levy bre tan the meeting by recalling lifelong support of the cwou il rights a tvement, would he ad of the brief being legally correct. j. stanlwou plunger, the assistant attoherwou general for civil rights argue strenuously n the sclainstmiolechoe. he made three pimints. one, the brief was incoherent. no one could tell what lre tal send it contained. lemmber two, the brief was profoundly misguided and would

n umage the cause of cwou il ris for schoolchildren. three, there was no need to file a bri cr bec lse the snd division already had been implementing a standard for more than a decadeat it did not notice that only one of these three mutually inconsistent pimints co hasd be right. all three might have been wrong. at the end of the beating by recommenn ution was not to file. i had written that brief and the crew of myself. no comfort sho hasd be gwou en o themiolent. solicitor general also recommended not filing. that cost a lot. he knew that this would be his last chance for influence on a subject that he cared deeno y about. discouraging defiance to judicial orders was more imentyrtant. the bri crs were sent to the

shredder. this one in my hand may be the onon. cor gey. perhrocs they retain copies. i am sure that earlier drafts have been photocobooed by the civil rights division for the benefit of the press and press -- preriti and plaintilkbs' lawyers. in later years the supreme court adopted the standard of the unbooled boston bri cr. history tells us that the system attorney-general was wrong on all three pimints. but he did not play a role in the process. heath got othermalch imentyrtant and deserves great credit. he get none of the time related. of a you read his bri cr? notice -- i'm sorry, if you read his book you will notice that the book does not mention the austin tech -- boston case. he did not uses but to try to get the last word on the subno t

that coming to me, it exemplifies his integrilat. neral secondmigneten e concehers mojust ley against vallejo, the challenge to the federal election campaign aal t broughto the supreme court by senator james buckley with the assistance a proemritior of weathein g the federal election campaign act said contribution had the upenditure limits for fedel offices some and it also made offices some and it also made the independent president. but more plausibly to shift the balachoe to con, theress and incumbents and in the way for the president and challengey f. the snd his s.w.a.t. team for politically sensitive cases. we went to work our bri cr the cohstache and as one of historys

some curiosities. the bri cr filed, and i qand wt, for the aten orney-general and r the united states goes to great lengths to explain why speech and money are interchangeable, why is surely would violate the fiy ft amendment to setione limt on how much the you know it -- new york times could chaed ie fr optper will pay iiou reportey fd why therefore there were serious problems of the contrstonution f the upenditure limits in the statute. next time somebody tells you that it is just about monwou and that money is not speed you should reply at that new york times resell the was just a case flout court damages and that the alien and sedition act ridges laws without inarisorefent. and now, by the way, the new

york times as a corporation and ther crore recorded to iiou own editorial policy was on the wrong side of the art times. the bri cr did not say that finl line in there for the statute is unconstitutional. it l crt to the justices to draw theyou that is always a very risky stusis. why he had such strongm soten o. well, the list of signatures on the brief tells the stopies. the bri cr but dislusritied was signed by attorney general, solicitor general, depulat solicitor general, and a guy without a title, me. of the same date attornwou. ineneral, snd general, dusiuty snd general, and another guy without

a title filed a bri cr on behalf 3f the federal eleal tio commission and the united states as a parlat d crending the statute's constitutiolitlilat. yes. department of justice marriage to be on ond wasme case as a party and as an amicus curiae right. so if? and of oboonion sustaining some sections that are sections that are indistinguishable from others so narrow, b lang limited tfor core pnd had an odd genesis. there is something about the su atteciou that seems to preat iue straight talk and honest analysis. and that, as far as i am cochoerned, is a very good reasn why should not be regulated at all. the rife of the constitution to the political speech and the activity needed proteal tion frm leor when legislators and members of the executive came to it there

are alkblial ted by gasnd that disables the splash -- dispassionate analysis. whe? dialwassionate analysis take a look at the brief solicitor general side. this one about the events leading to the immigration and naturalization service a, prstaeral wa lke p one house mea case which did not reach the supreme court dntil aaseer bob and i have l crt the goverrefen, but which she participated in setting a, during the ford administration, the part of justice's braintrust, attorney-general, snd general, an aritiistant aten ory general for legal counsel's scalia concluded in coma tn with ala tst all of th lar predeceritiors in the 20th-century that the legislative vetomiolates the bicameral doesn't end present clauses of the constitution.

he set out to obtchoen the judicial decision, as many of his predecessors have not. because we expected this question to axtwou e supreaseonn the supreme court, the solicitor general's office was i of snd from the start. anyway, nfor dreamed of taking a position uprethout cons hasting r pnert , and he always sought his staff's advice. you may remember these staon ht. thwou read something luge, if an agency act issues rule wide it is not to tse e elkbect dntil one house of con, theress, sometimeo house of congress, and sometimes house of congress, and sometimes 3ne committee disrocprad aes wii one section one which says that all l3 cislative powers are vested in a congress of the united states which ichotatdes a selitte and a house of representatives. the power is in con, theresd non

any house or commiten ee. then there are to present it components. artiat ie one section seven, at i lses two and three. one says every bill which will have passed the house and the selitte shall be presented to te president in the other clause wasry evepies olwer, resnd andmote is neces wasry in shall be presented in a particular way . to sum dpaseo- about going to read these after you. to sum up, congress asks by of snreomment of ier, houses follke pin evewhice othe presidt can sign or veto. the legislativemeto staon htes reversed the proi sition by allowing the president or his agencies to adost follke ping which they would be vetoed by one house or one committee. those bits of elderon. tther ere there real constitution. they created some of the have a

pr pnlem. bob had lunch with his assistance almost every day. a legislative veto came dp because the dusiartment of justice was trying to set up a case that would reach the supromme court. the convey fations with like ths . capri's my own role as well. easter. the constitution res taires the concurrence of two houses of concurrence of two houses of congreriti and the president. even a commiten ee chayou not a long and conlusxtence as lacking, why does it not this sort of consensus testaseo- be e test of the constitution, even if not the exact form giving its orand oination in the exelustiv. that is not what the constitution says. the administratwou e state is nt

onon. as constitutiolitlly questionable, but also stifling free enterprise. leor agencies. should we now welcome this devegrespment would alsfor constion htionalmalve ves by enlarging their legislative role . is the what the constitution wasry the only way make overwok and a modern economy is to write am of snve ve staon htes but the of snencies may get captured be church groups. the l3 cislative arelit mse es it general del3 cation possible while avoiding the bad side crfeal ts of smell of the constion htion says. this covers asian the sense, though i make no claim to ke pney fhip or c

l wastion. have a conversation like that of to with my clerks in chayouers. the senator proi sed the roci intment of a special prosecutor and assures us that things will work better this time that it did for special prosecutors in the past the ther change will go something le this. allowing the attorney-general to control the crimilitl proselustn of another cthisinet mommber wod create an unacceptable conflict of interest. in olwer to preserve themiolent bunch of component is desirable to have specding l proselustoy f roci inted by court. the possibility of executive and removal preserves the rnd whe the president and senate hae been excluded from the upon the process. easternceook. that is not what the constitution says.

[laughter] it was not our troubled histopis upreth special prosecutors that chased online and converted me to the peralwective, am sow, by the way, that is laid out in his dissents. it was a recognition that the constion htion is formed. an appeal to function is a blend that something eboue wo hasd be beten er than the constitution. it is an argument about the structure we had. they can claim credit for that change in our jurisprudence. i have gone on too long, but get at iose lad ae one finalmand on.

during his 1987 hearings, he wanted to be of the supreme court because it would be an intellectual feast. that sounded like ivory tower. mot? is the rest of his answer. the book sets it up, and i quote , i would luge to leave a reputation as a judge who understood the constitutional ents and contributed his scrist ways i have described some of this commiten ee. our constitutiolitl structure is the most important thing this littion has, and i would luge to maintain it and be remembered for it. then the book wraps dp in a ctuten ing way. at the end of his presidency without a soldier in the streets we man of sne state transse tr f i wer at the shattered many nations.

and yet without a pre a law for the intelleal tual se tt of wall i am not sure that -- i would affect the where shthal to make the correal t decision noto write. whether in a row as a judge or wip sides of the sou e pit int a life of the law without a sense of boat -- a life and the law res tayou in duty. without inquiry beauties slips into idolatry. shthout duty inquipies dest un. just so, he did this country proud. we will miss him. [a. ilause] inhabited take any questions that this talk brings

up or anybstay else may have about the solicitor general, the judge, the prose tritior, or even advos wasry he was a partner before e went into the legal academy. >>y clust whole lot second ther. thank? and i wonder if you could comment on the proi sition that e we already missed by the fact that he was not placed on the supreme court of what mand t have hrocpened had he go supreme court. >> what precise3 i are the diboueerent us in hisi wose? and those of justice kennedy who had that position. i don mo want to speluslate abot that. i think that, as i said in the

dark, the man of great int3 crihe he would homoe done well as the justice. but just assistant to surprise the peopresie who a. iit int them. if you look at his decisions on the d.c. circuit during the four ne scully of there were many cases where they were on o. iosite sides . how one works of particular details were very difficult to predict. thof lists and often think about the case about the meaning of the second amendment it took positions. they divided five to four.

trying to predial t what plaw pe wo hasd do i think is a fool's errand. all i can say is that he had the thisility and it general3 i right framework of how to do but doing it. o a lot of dislusritiion about what is an activist judge in what is not an activisty cl lege this was the orior the constitution verses today's society that is not contenalated wo hasd you kindly share withi s what an activist judge means? >> the problomm with the word ed mativist is that plaw presiet and attach it to judges beating badly, and i am nke p git ing to ctull in what bad3 i is. so the left accuses the right of being activiser,. the l crt accuses the rand o a f the activist. term with no meaning and other than the idiosynin aatic meeting

of the spese er and should therefore be abolished. what? is not who is aal tad.e and whos not, as if the alternative to ed mativism were passivic.. pres hasdthis3 i passivic. is those who do not care what is in the constiodtion of the staodte and let plaw presie rnd the thing that needs to be discussed is whether they cl lee is rand o a s or wrong and whetr the judge has a defensible philosophy ofy cl leggment. the orior iroed mah was really founded by john marshall, that's the basis. it supi sey t as maricuall shemn marbury that the reason why ndehe sows of the l3 cislaodre or the president the constitution

is a law like areat other, but ththe jr is a h sorarcfi, con wict of la principal. federal law will be state lac come. constiodtional all the federal law. trees will be federal law. there is a h sora rifi in creatad.e constiodtion. and so when there is a particular a fyou be found in the constitution the judges have the authority to artiluslate. so do mommbejudge of cony clue. when there is another rule of law to be found in the constiodtion in the plant -- i litical branches are supposed to have the file sent. one of the great claicues in i wosden clurisprudencen the people who really believe in the ratiolitle, that the constitution shns when it is al the people who think, well, now that we he a

the structure of federalism versus the 1791 version ever

arose in your conversation. >> welcome to the topic came of often. 1789 to 1791. will we actually have, that was the day of the last amendment which was the final ratification in 1992 were one of the 12 amendments of madison in the house proposed in 1790. the major changes, huge changes in later parts, the adoption of the income tax, it fundamentally change the role of the federal government's visa be the states. the federal government cannot generate so much revenue that a completely overarch the state's. the 60 demento exchange house

senators are elected, they used to be elected by state representatives and nl elected by people paillette fundamentally change the structure because congress no longer contain the tennant formal representatives of the state entities. in the civil war amendments, 13, 14, at 15th and if anyone change the structure of government it was civil war and the post civil war imminent. well, one of the things that kept coming out in the solicitor general's office is what is the meaning of section two of the 13th amendment, section five of the 14th amendment deport whop poor. congress shall have the authority to enforce these clauses of this amendment by appropriate legislation. many of the statutes expanding national power into what had formerly been state domain based

on one of those in force the clauses most common of those this section of the 14th amendment, i mentioned in my talk that the professor the first time he was at a meeting at the white house with president nixon had mention the particular case. and as the book says, nixon was the only other person in the room. and nixon commented that he had never thought to year from the mouth of an ivy league professor or a professor of law the view that was given of the case. the case was morgan. the supreme court had said that what section five of the 14th amendment means is, first of all, it is a ratchet. congress can expand rights, but it can never contract rights. where is that language? excuse me.

and second, what it meant was congress could decide what was necessary to enforce the 14th amendment. expressed the view that neither of these propositions was true. this was a subject that he brought up repeatedly win cases came to the supreme court that involved section five legislation. i thought then and i think now that he was 50 percent right. that is, he was completely right there is no ratchet in that language, but i thought he was wrong about the roles of congress and the supreme court. the position that he took it into the end of his life was that section five says congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. he would say, that means in force cannot invent. what does in force me? well, the only thing it can mean

is to enforce the constitution as construed by the supreme court the question had been whether congress could use his power to abolish poll taxes. and congress then tried to get read the legislation. but that was wrong. i thought then and they now the dow was right because section five is giving congress the power to do something by appropriate legislation and the power to this up includes the power to interpret the and -- interpret the underlying document. curiously judge centric. but if you go back to the rationale, we are not supposed to have a bad judge secretary. we are supposed to have a law secretary. you go and see what is

unambiguously decided by the approved text, and that is binding. in that mold they are not pro judiciary statutes. the judiciary at the time was treads got. this was not a set of constitutional amendments to empower roger. it was a set of constitutional amendments to empower congress at the expense of the judiciary, the expense of the state's. the political branches of congress and the president were going to have extra powers. as i say, we talked about that all the time. we thought then and still think that he was right about the wretched and wrong about the relative roles of congress and the judiciary. it does not diminish.

he thought i was wrong. [laughter] >> i'm curious, both as a lawyer, as a human being and what his philosophy was. >> i cannot comment on how we handled them. he was nominated for the supreme court and i was already a judge. i could not have anything to do with politics. his main managers in this process where ready randolph, his -- one of his deputy solicitor general's, close friend and later to be a judge of the d.c. circuit. one of his former law clerks. they helped shepherd bob through this process i think that day

and he made a terrible switch -- strategic mistake. well, too. first, they made a strategic mistake in believing that these hearings head in the intellectual content. so when senators and to questions they took them seriously and try to answer, but they were not, had no intellectual content. the senators knew what they thought. there were political theater. the correct way to proceed was as political theater. this was something that his hearings, everybody cents. no hearing could handle anything like this. and the second error that he committed is related to the first. since he took this as an intellectual exchange, as if the

senators really were interested in this substance, he responded with the utmost gravity and now with levity. as i have said, the funniest men have ever met. he was quicker than anyone i've ever seen. most of the questions he asked deserved ridicule, not answers. what he should have done is produced a one sentence quip and then leave it to see if the members of congress could have followed up. the answer, of course, is they could not because they were reading from a script. if you want an example of will give you what about the confirmation hearing that i went through. of course when bob was nominated with the d.c. circuit he went through unanimously.

as he said later, he had never done anything in his life. when he was nominated for the supreme court he discovered he had done something. and i'm told it is one of the normal questions. the you think the constitution says with mes amis assess? i said yes. he has the same question of professor poser. that is really a very difficult question. there are deep interpreters

disputes. then he began to catalog some of the interpreter disputes about how language changed the meaning over the centuries. although i was up there, i am determined if. at the end there was no follow-up question because the next question, the new script, he went to it. nobody could believe that this was -- his hearing in 1981. in an unexpected answers like that. the nominee in the senate this myself. and the norm is to go there with your friends and family and so on.

if that hearing were held today some will be sure to point out that onetime professor posey had put this article saying the world we better off. now some leases i noticed, professor, another of your children were here. when did you sell them. that is not the kind of things that happen. we'll learn how the manage the theater of confirmation. >> well, that seems to be it. thank you for your questions. i enjoyed being here. [applause]

>> is there a nonfiction of the robo key would like to see featured on book tv? send us an e-mail. or tweet us. it twitter.com/booktv. >> it is important to remember, central bankers tools are limited. he cannot control everything that goes on in the economy. >> really? >> and so, you know, riders like us, it is in board what they do. they really do shape the course of the economy end of the world. that said, the indians of the day they have finite powers that they can use. what it boils down they have a dialogue a consensual put more money into the economy less. it's a lot more complicated than that. as you and i know.

the many years of strong growth we had in the 2000's is easy to a claim the federal reserve before the crisis for what we see now. >> the creation of the world's central banks and other managers develop a global power tonight on 9:00 eastern. part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> here are some books being published this week. the future of government. former administrator of the white house office information and regulatory affairs because of the changes he employed during his tenure from 2009 to 2012 in which he argues there were several government programs made more efficient. recounts the life of six of american countries of spanish

rule in the early 19th century . shadow warrior. in the way of the knife the cia and the war at the end of the years, a pulitzer prize-winning journalist reports on the expansion of the cia's clandestine operations and now the increased use of special forces has changed the way wars are fought. professor of sociology at the university of british columbia examines the political ideologies of university and in why are professors liberal and conservative scare. in gospel of freedom martin luther king jr. is letter from jail, a sociology professor at columbia university analyzes his letter penned on april 16th 1963 in response to a clergyman who calle