>> there are a number of reasons but when you have capital punishment the public doesn't want ite you don't the public cries out but also we had an

important supreme court decision we don't go into a great deal of detail but if there is an alternative sentence of life imprisonment no parole juries must be advised of that. if not you have to do it all over again. so if juries know they have the choice death or life without parole, the personal never see the light of day again we find they're more inclined to vote for life in prison. talk about arbitrary and capricious there are 15,000 homicides per year in the u.s.. that iso dn and several hundred deaths sentences but over the last three or four years the average 40 or 50 executions. so many deathnces and homicides that so few

executions that robert bork said yes it is arbitrary and capricious only that those who are deserving of the death penalty don't get executed when they should. but look at it this way. if i said pick a card and you picked the wrong car you will die? nobody would go along with that. but as a practical matter that is the way this needs to play out. knowing he would be given as a death sentence if it will be carried out except you do know if the victim is black or white or they don't have any money for the death sentence is more likely than not and it should not play into it at all but they do. >>curse, the composition is one factor but what is happening with

the both live in maryland that is set interesting microcosm with two legislative se07 and 2009 there were efforts pushed by the governor to repeal the death penalty in maryland. that effort did not succeed until two months ago. the public opinion is in favor of it but this support is soft most to support the death penalty feel it does not deter crime. so things are changing. >> one of the worst crimes in the book involves one of the worst crimes of truly cold blooded murder that was horrible and was on death mo the people die of

old age like the rest of us. >> for some it is a matter of closure. if relative is murdered and someone gets of death sentence you could be sure there will be 15 to 25 years every views and agony before closure. parole as a hearing about once per year in and you were told onc the victim's daughter he's looked at her and winked and said see you next year. how bad is that? if you want closure they feel the family feels really kosher is t be put to death but real closure that it might be more meaningful if you have a life sentence and the appeals went away with the death penalty they don't ann congress tries to short circuit those appeals with the other concerns may be

someone who would be executed to is a visit our rights were violated at the trial. we don't want daddy there one thing we do find it has a strong commitment to due process of law sometimes referred to as civil fair play we want there to be strong rules to protect all of us and with those rules in place we have tasker cells may be our society being what it is maybe we made it impossible to implement capital punishment in a meaningful way. baum in as peace with the uncertain it will not be swift with all the protections we have in place. what do we do? we submit that is not the answer. >> host: the point* you made earlier it is much more difficult for lice -- less likely for them to go the route of the death penalty

but why that was i know your book talks about the history of execution how they were once public and that was disturbing then they took it endorsed the is the interesting evolution just to think about where we are today with the quality of the evidence is available is that why it is higher? why do you think that is? >> we're learning more and more about evidence will be used to take about gospel like hair samples is a whole new question given the fact there are forensic guidelines that lead people in the wrong direction. eyewitness testimony is less and less reliable. there is a lot we are burning with the process we did not know before. >> the evolution as dna evidence is jurors greater

cause about imposing a death sentence unless you are absolutely certain. been merrill lynch they said you either have to have dna evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or the crime must have been committed on videotape for equally compelling for anyone to be given a death sentence. the concern is great and illinois has a death penalty and the governor said with research from the innocence project and northwestern law students showed mistakes are made left and right. i think jurors know about that. unless proof is truly beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, to return a death sentence and that is why you don't see as many. >> host: your point* about the desperate impact on communities especially with maryland was an interesting point*.

just to go into that a little bit as it applies to the research and discussions in your book. >> there is a flip side and that is texas with there is no inclination there and anyone who is running for office is not running very long or far. there are pockets that cry out for capital punishment and i don't think that will change. >> to change going on in georgia right now there is the shortage of chemicals with which to kill people because the traditional diesel cocktails' have withdrawn permission and they're not available. the state of georgia is in a quandary because its limited supply just expired the expiration date on the

lethal injection make it impossible to inject into anybody for any reason. know they have the state legislature that just passed a law awaiting governor's signature that imposed secrecy on the fact that, pounding pharmacies might be hired to put chemicals together to be used in executions. under that lot it is a state secret of to manufacture it or what the chemical was rennie physician who helped in the process. we're talking about capital punishment going undercover in a way that i think it's scary there are ways to fight this there is a human rights organization that has been very helpful the southern center of human-rights that is trying very hard to see the inmates or defendants matter how guilty they appear at least

with adequate representation but to make sure these cases are exposed and cameras are allowed in the courts in georgia to see what is going on because i think a lot of people would be surprised. >> just to talk on that point* with adequate representation at what point* do you find it absolutely essential that this take place? >> 50 years ago this month or last month in march the supreme court ruled in all state courts anyone charged with a felony should be entitled to counsel and we find in many parts of the country that what they call adequate or effective assistance of counsel is nothing more than having a lawyer there that says here's the deal you should

plead guilty. that happens because that is the best deal i will get i have to go to trial and you think i might be convicted? that does happen. i do think judges go to greater length for the effective counsel and death penalty but still we have cases where lawyers failed to show up for show up strong for the double murder case, lawyers make mistakes that clearly would prevent a death sentence we just recently had a case before the supreme court were the inmates got new lawyers but the lawyers did not get the information they needed. that is too bad. he should still be executed. with everything of capital

punishment that wherever you are with the moral question here have to get to do the practical question and that is that we haven't. >> host: this has been an absolute tree and i appreciate. thank you so much.

>> and again the principal author of the legislation intended to make sure real security is much more secure in our country. i am the author of the legislation that moves toward ensuring chemical plants are more protected within our country. on our to records, i think we both tried hour best to work hard. my priorities wound up being the of lot of the united states in order to protect the security of our country. >> but you voted no on the port secure -- port security bill and the joint terrorism task force that enabled response if special agent deloria where commissioner davis or colonel alvin all the federal, state, and local agencies could not work together we would not have had the effect of response that we had on that bill clearly. i voted yes.

how it used in this? i voted yes. you voted no. that is the fact. >> i support the existence of integration of the joint terrorism task force. >> did not know the specific circumstances at that time. >> you remember everything else. >> not bad moment but when there was an objection of the bush and administration through 2006 with the cooperation of all agencies within the department of homeland security, i was the principal person pushing the administration in terms of the joint terrorism task force that there is complete cooperation of all agencies i was in support of doing that. >> but to create data you voted no eyes understand you wrote that and i understand policy but when the issue came up to create the joint

task force, i voted yes and you voted no. i don't know how use been in a. you're doing a good job trying. >> the reason i know that on this issue that i stood up for the american people was that i was the one fighting in the trenches. >> let me get this right. the other 470 members of congress were not standing up? you and the nine others that boded no? i don't get that. every single member of congress' eighth democrat or republican that supported funding for homeland security, supported having a coordinated effort between federal stay local officials, we voted for that. you voted against it and somehow you are the champion >> if i did go know the reason i voted no they were

excluding a provision that would have made the bill even stronger that would be the only reason why. >> it was good enough for four credits 17 members but you and your self and nine others voted no? even after 9/11 even the representatives of congress from new york city that had thousands of people killed boded yes. >> i am telling you right now yes i was only one of two people that voted do. for example, one port security to was only one of to because i did not believe the bill was strongly enough. yes on this issue i am with the hard-liners to ensure common not at all

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

welcome to the if heritage foundation and we welcome all those who'd joined us on these occasions on our web site and those joining us stadia c-span we ask everyone here if you are here to make sure your cell phones have been turned off. all of us will appreciate that especially those recording the event we will post this on the homepage within 24 hours for future reference as well and know if you please join me to welcome our presenters on the stage. clap collapse. [applause] gentlemen? >> thank you. is said joy. i am the chief of staff here at the heritage foundation it is a joy to be here with senator dan and to introduce chaplain black to the heritage lectures seminars

program. having served in the senate as the chief of staff i can't say that chapman -- chaplin and black is in a secular institution looking at the topic today bridging the divide may cause you to think the intention is to eliminate the divide to put the two sides into $1 and not a perfect analogy but average does not exist to eliminate or close the divide but to acknowledge that defied. if exist because of the divide and traverses it. today's program put it will win and says it is possible to bridge the divide between the secular and religious world and quite arguably for the betterment. i can think of no better description of what chaplain black does this ticket -- 62nd of the senate and he

is the man standing in the gap band as a pastor geezers as counselor and comfort her and friend to many including myself and rarely a day goes by i don't think of something we has bought and a bible study that helps mr. challenging situation as somebody who spent most of dues career deployed months at a time has plenty of practical a vice. so now it is my honor to introduce senator jim demit to introduce chaplain black. [applause] it is wonderful to have you here. out of the darkness into the light over here at the heritage foundation. [laughter] i just came from there myself. chaplain black was commissioned 1976 from the u.s. navy and retired as we are admiral after nearly a

30 year career serving as a navy chief of chaplains in his last position and has earned doctorates in both philosophy and ministry and his biography from the hood to the hill of recounts the story of overcoming some promising beginnings in the inner city of baltimore. his most recent book the blessing of adversity adversity, finding your god-given purpose and life's troubles distills the wisdom he has gained from 30 years as head counselor, a theologian and psychologists to address the many trials and life and we have plenty of those. i appreciate you coming to share with us today. [applause] speenine thank you so much i am extremely nervous today because members of my staff are here and they are critiquing.

[laughter] a lady approached me some time ago and said dr. black, if they permit prayer in the legislative branch of government, why have they removed prior from our schools? and i must confess i was rather flippant in my response. it was a response and i should have thought through more carefully i said madame, as long as there are final exams there will always be prayers in our schools. [laughter] it demonstrates the fact that even in a secular environment, the spiritual is often present. in 1787, at the continental congress, the group had reached an impasse when

benjamin franklin spoke and he said gentleman, i am an old man. but i have lived long enough to know that if a spero cannot fall without god knowing it, that an empire or republic cannot rise without his help and franklin suggested the group should pray. i think it is an example of bringing the spiritual into a secular environment. many of us feel the work of the spiritual is that of a minister only by the ordained clergy person i could inject some spirituality into my workplace, work environment or the secular environment. i would challenge that

presuppositions. i think it is critically important to remember 90% the life of jesus was spent in a secular occupation. he was a carpenter. only three years of what we would consider a priest, profit, and minister, are reached. 75 percent of our biblical heroes and heroines were involved in secular occupations may yet were able to bring the spiritual into those occupations. daniel, shadrach, meshach or as we used to say the bad negro. [laughter] there were so many, nehemiah

, as so many who brought the dimension of the spiritual into a secular environment and joseph was prime minister of egypt in my in amazing contribution he made bridging the divide between the sacred and secular. now as senator demint mentioned i was in the navy 27 years. and i was delighted to be in that military organization because as most of you know, jesus was the navy man. with the ship's walking on water. [laughter] something to he was arraigned i believe it was the navy. [laughter] not the marines. 27 years of serving and i still remember having a supervisor second in command

an individual i did not enjoy being a must confess. confession is good for the soul. he rarely spoke a paragraph without plenty of profanity and that is rather aggravating for a person of the cost. he was writing my evaluation so what do you do? i would take him on in the evening prayer on the ship with the public address system and the chaplain offers a prayer for all of the sailors. the executive officer and i were going back and forth as i would be debating him in their prayer and of course, after the prayer as i was leaving the bridge will the chaplain please report to the executive office and what is wrong? [laughter] hair darr you talk about me in the prayer?

i did not mention a name i simply said god misspeak offended by the amount of profanity it happening on the ship even at the highest levels. [laughter] a clever way to bridge the divide between the sacred and secular but then a new commanding officer came aboard. he did not wear his religion on his sleeve or did not even attend the worship services or the bible studies i conducted. but after today's of wandering around the ship he had at captain's call when he defines reality for the ship and one of the things he said quoting george washington was there would be no profanity aboard his ship. no profanity quoting george washington who said something about needing to use profanity was an

indication of a limited intellect. there was. and i honestly believed there was no way the executive officer could speak standard english. there was no way. the end of his career absolutely no way he would be able to obey this order that was just too much for him. i never heard him speak more than a sentence or two without using profanity but miracles of miracles. [laughter] all of a sudden the language on that ship was clean. and it was absolutely amazing the difference that it made because individual and i dunno how religious he was, could inject the ethical and moral in to a spiritual or secular environment. might challenge to you if you are a person of faith to

find no way to bridge the divide and to recognize that many times to make a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular is incorrect. . . your children are not your

children. there are the sons and daughters of life longing for itself. it comes truly but not from you and though there with you they do do not belong to in infamy someone said speak to us of religion. and he said, have i spoken this day of what else? is not religion all deemed a reflection and that which is not deemed a reflection a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul. i think first corinthians 10:31 captures what we should be doing if we are going to make sure whether you be or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of god. it is basically challenging us to glorify god in our behavior,

whether we are at work, whether we are at home, wherever we are and whatever we do, we should strive to glorify god. and i want to make just a few suggestions on how to do that. the first suggestion is to be salt and light. some of you have heard the great communicator ronald reagan talk about america as a shining city upon a hill. he was actually paraphrasing nephew 5:16 where jesus said you are the light of the world, a city set upon a hill. it cannot be hidden. we ought to be salt and light if we are to glorify god in the workplace. so -- salsa makes food politics will. i i've spent a lot of time in south carolina pastoring trade

i'm an alumnus of the university of south carolina at sumpter but anyhow, i cannot imagine grids without so. i shudder. [laughter] i shudder at the thought of grids without salt. your presence in the workplace bringing who you are as a spiritual being and glorifyinglorifyin g god in all you too should make the workplace more palatable. people should not be high-fiving one another when you have -- [laughter] you should instead make the workplace a more pleasant environment. be salt. salt in the days before refrigeration also preserved food. and your presence in the workplace bringing who you are as a spiritual being should make

the workplace a more secure environment. you'll recall and genesis 18, abraham interceding for sodom and gomorrah. god, are there at least 10 people there? james chapter 5:16 says a factual fervent prayer of the righteous. when you can't do anything else, you can always pray and there is power in your prayer. so be salt by making the workplace more secure with your intercession. be solved by making the workplace a more palatable place and be light. it eliminates. illuminate. make a difference by the insight you bring based upon the knowledge you have of sacred

scripture. and many times, you don't give chapter and verse of course but simply paraphrasing a biblical insight will help you to be a force for good, particularly when in the workplace people are facing right versus right conundrums. it's very easy to solve right versus wrong conundrums but the right versus right conundrums are the difficult ones to solve. another one of the reasons why we are challenged in the legislative branch because many of the issues, not all of them but many of the issues debated in the chamber involved right versus right ,-com,-com ma true versus loyalty, long-term versus short-term, justice versus mercy , right versus right, individual versus the community.

and you, a person of faith and revelatory knowledge can eliminate that environment. the same way that joseph was able to give illumination to pharaoh and daniel in daniel chapter 5. the governmental career was able to give illumination to epic an answer, the belshazzar and later cyrus and darius and the persian empires. be salt and light in your workplace. second, witness without words. that is tough to pull off because a lot of us are good talkers but we don't back up our talk with our actions. if you are ethically congruent, your actions should be the key thing that you focus on. frances of the cc'ed said preach the gospel everywhere you go

when necessary use words. so do you, a force for good in the workplace can make a difference without saying anything. paul put it this way in second corinthians 3:3. you are a living letter to be read by all who see you, a living letter and your guests put it another way. he said i would rather see your sermon didn't hear it any day. i would rather it should walk with me they merely tell the way. the eyes are better and more willing than the years. find consult is confusing but example always clear. best of all the teachers are the ones who live to see good into

action is what everybody needs. i soon can learn to do it if you let me see it done. i can watch her hands in actions but your tone is too fast. the lectures you deliver maybe ever wise and true but i would rather get my message by observing what you do. witness without words. finally, you are going to bridge that divide between the secular, live to serve. your focus should be about servant, labor or servant leadership. i wrote a wonderful book leadership is an ardent and that look he said the three responsibilities of leadership, the first is to define reality. the leader pr e vision

for those working on a particular organization. the last responsibility of a leader is to make sure that there is an orderly transition from the organization to retirement or wherever the person is going after he or she leaves. to say goodbye in a dignified way. that is why we have what we call hail and farewell. you have to hail and farewell to say goodbye to folks. but in between says dupre the leader is a servant. how can i serve? and it is this proclivity for service that should make all the difference in the world. are you a servant? put it this way first corinthians chapter 4, think of yourself as a servant and a

steward of the mystery of god. am i serving? one of the last speeches made for actually was a sermon by martin luther king, the less sermon that he preach he ended it by talking about what he wanted to say. he is said if any of you are around when it comes my time to meet my day that one along funeral. get somebody to deliver the eulogy and tell them not to talk too long. tell them not to mention that i won a nobel peace prize and tell them not to mention that 13 or 400 other words. that's not important. tell them not to mention where i went to school because i want someone be able to say that day that martin luther king, jr. tried to give his life serving others. i want them to be able to say that martin luther king, jr. tried to love somebody. i want them to be able to say that i did try to feed the

hungry and to clothe the and to visit those who are in prison. i want them to say that i tried to be right on the war question. i want them to be able to say that i tried to love and to serve humanity. and then he ended, every baptist preacher has to do a little lyrical intimation. i won't do that because i don't want to frighten anybody. yes if you must say that i was a -- say that i was a drum major for justice. say that i was a drum major for truth. say that i was a drum major for righteousness and all of the other things of life will not matter. i won't have any money to leave behind he said. i won't have any of the fine luxurious things of life to leave behind but i just want to leave a committed life.

that is what each of us can do and we will bridge the divide beeen the sacred and the secular. if we are salt and light ,-com,-com ma if we witness without words, if we live to serve, then the words the hymn writer will become through, if i can help just one somebody as i pass along, then my living shall not be in vain. god love you. [applause] >> do you think we could arrange

for this every monday at noon? [laughter] we will be glad to take questions. we have a microphone and if you'll be so kind as to to introduce yourself and make your question in the form of a question. we will be happy to read nice you. we will start down here in the front. >> thank you so much chaplains black. i would like to ask breitbart published a piece about -- for religious tolerance and along with that pushed to make military chaplains push that in the military environment. how do you see a committed christian being able to stand up against things that might be considered religious persecution

in the united states in politics today? >> while the military has religious accommodation policies that you would have to eliminate in order to pull that off and the religious accommodation directives make it clear that a clergy person cannot be forced to do anything that he or she is not comfortable with doctrinally. military chaplains serve in a context called institutional duality. they are endorsed by a church, so they receive and ecclesiastical endorsement as well as being commissioned by the military and the withdrawal of an eight ecclesiastical endorsement would remove the chaplain from his position as a chaplain so that there are

safeguards right now that would have to be removed. i can see many military chaplains having some problems because to preach the passages of paul with exegetical integrity which means -- engaging in hate speech said this is a challenge that i think we are going to have to deal with going forward. >> map with the christian -- when you talk about salt and light i hear you talk about christians being a quiet witness but i wonder when is it appropriate for christians to be more of aloud witness in things like protests and boycotts and the civil rights movement or cutting certain companies and things like that?

how should a christian decide when to be a quiet witness? >> heiress total -- aristotlaristotl e wrote a book called the rhetoric and he said to persuade you need a tripod. he used greek words. ethos is being perceived as ethically congruent and that is what, that is what witnessing without words is all about. the problem is we are often loud before we have the witness of our integrity and our sensitivity particularly to the marginalized. and so i think yes there is a time for a louder witness but that should need preceded by a lot of loving, a lot of serving. the civil rights movement was

actually a great example of witnessing without words. because i participated, i was in alabama in the 60s and listen to martin luther king jr.. we put our bodies on the line without making speeches. martin was her spokesperson but when we faced the billy club by the police officers and the police dogs, we did not say a word and yet aroused the conscience of the nation without words. so i think there is a time for louder witness when someone says what you do speaks so loudly that i can't hear what you say. >> thank you so much.

l.a. geiser and i'm a founder here at heritage. i'm curious as to whatyou think, there seems to be to go back to aristotle for a second, society's understanding of justice seems to be shifting over the last couple of years or longer, away from the idea of justice and understood by people of faith such that you now see conflicts arising where people say my conscience precludes me from paying for this procedure or insurance. hhs says justice requires you to pay. at what point does it become a separation between that secular definition of justice and the religious definition of justice such that the people on that

religious side starch to be excluded from political participation and how do you prevent that sort of thing from happening? >> well, i think jesus rendered to caesar the things that are caesar and to god the things that are god. that's the vertical part when you're wrestling with an issue like that but i think also a person has to have efficient integrity where there are lines that you won't cross. and you have to have the courage, like -- here's an unjust law and they basically say in daniel chapter 3, for verse 17 our god is able to deliver us. he will deliver us that even if he doesn't and they are talking to the king, we would rather battle then burned. they had a commitment and i don't know where daniel was at

the time but they have the willingness to do that and daniel chapter 6, daniel going into the lion's den rather than obeying an unjust law. the whole civil rights movement was based upon this nation of -- notion of disobeying unjust law. that is what gandhi did. so we have a history of nonviolent direct action and we certainly have enough people of faith that there are creative ways that we can tackle any challenge that we face. but we have to be a lot more creative in that approach, having a team effort. the wonderful verse in luke 10 the harvest is alive but the labor is the -- for what you do and praises the lord of the harvest. we need more committed labors --

[inaudible] to help him in his challenging situation. have that line that you won't cross and it's going to take a lot of folks to make a difference. it really doesn't. chronicle 7:14 my people called by my name humble themselves and seek my faith and heal their land. there's a powerful force in that little remnant that knows how to speed dial heaven. >> al milliken a.m. media. i was interested in your understanding, and wondering if you got instruction about this when you started your position in the u.s. government. the origins of prayer in the congress my understanding was that really was started by jim and franklin whom i believe had various religious beliefs throughout his life but at the time he proposed that it seems

to me he probably was a diest. he wasn't someone that believed in the same guy that i believed in as a christian. i am wondering how you see prayer and how is it proposed to be used in congress? it's one thing praying for a christian or a believer in any religion but someone who may be nominal and that faith or someone who is agnostic or diest. >> franklin in 1787 at the continental congress that prayer came to the congress in 1789. interestingly enough gave three days before the establishment clause of the first amendment. so on that day the cause was proposed there was a prayer and

for the most part in uninterrupted prayer since 1979. i think franklin's notion of leading contact with the transcendent is at the foundation of this whole notion of prayer. we are enjoined, pray continuously. we should always be in an attitude of prayer but if there's anyplace on the planet where prayer is needed, it's capitol hill. [laughter] so i think that the basic 1789 the basic for us was we need to be connected with the transcendent and i think prayer makes a difference. it really does.

>> chaplain john hamill. since you are a daniel in the congress -- >> and the lion's den. >> we are praying for you. i would love to hear just a few examples of where you you have seen it move in congress related to your intercession? >> when i first arrived in the senate in 2003, i had a lady who came to me and asked me to pray for her because she had been diagnosed with inoperable cancer. we have a prayer team of several thousand people and we just get the first name and what the problem is. well, i encountered this lady three or four months later and she was smiling. she had begun to feel so good that she had gone back to her position and said if this is

dying, it's not too bad. he had wrought in all kinds of experts in the bottom line is, he could find no evidence of cancer at all. it ended up eight years later, she was 90, delivering the eulogy at her funeral. she died but not of cancer. she died of something else. so an example i believe that james 5:17 i am convinced that debt ceiling prayers, sequestered prayers, we stay on our knees. do you hear me? and time and time again sometimes at the 11th hour we have seen god step in and make a difference. i have had senators say to me chaplain, something you said in prayer caused me to change my

vote. i don't know what it was that your holy spirit has a way of touching hearts and it probably was something that i didn't intend to be direct did but god has a sense of humor. so, that is a good book and time will not permit me to tell you the many many times i have seen prayer answer in the u.s. senate. >> my question is. [inaudible] one of them in the white house. how would you react? [inaudible]

muslims might have their own demand. how would you reconcile so many kinds of prayers and having at some point at different -- more than one guard presenting the guard? >> well, ari now when, a famous roman catholic writer tells the story of the exodus in the children of israel going through the red sea. of course they go across on dry land and pharaoh tries to follow. the waters, and the army of pharaoh is drowned. the angels in heaven are looking at god and tears are coming down the face of god. the angel said god, why are you

crying? your children the israelites have just been freed from egyptian slavery, four centuries of slavery. my children the egyptians are dying. so i think our efforts to put god in a vox to define the transcendent, we are like children building sand castles and i think we are going to discover there is a greater unity of divinity that surround this planet than we realize. call him by whatever name you want to call him. i believe he has the whole world in his hands. >> shone with in god we trust. congressman walter jones introduced a bill to let military chaplains and prayer a

broad. can you engage the morale of military chaplains abroad and can you give us your view on that? >> well i spent 70 -- years in the navy and retired at two-star general. i prayed during that ministry thousands of times. worship service, bible studies, ministering to the sick. military chapter on a daily place is pray in the name of jesus but because we are in a pluralistic environment of ministry, there are times when a more inclusive prayer should he prayed. for instance, three marines have been killed. two of them are muslim. for me to pray christo centric

prayer, christ-centered prayer would probably be inappropriate. it would probably would not be -- i don't want to see inappropriate. when i am praying and we have hindus and i am facilitating for them and i pray a prayer where you are on the ship and there's no way you can jump. you can jump overboard if you don't want to here me but you've got to hear that prayer. there's nowhere for you to hide. for me to pray father god in the mighty name of jesus, that name is above every, would probably be a little over the top. the times when military chaplains cannot pray in the name of jesus in my opinion from my experience those times were few and far between. baptize folks the whole nine yards. then i talked about religious accommodation. if a chaplain comes from a religious tradition where he or she says you know if i don't say

that name it's not a prayer. fine, we will get someone else to say the prayer for this particular venue. no problem at all. even some chaplains who sprinkle and other of course correctly in immersed. just joking. [laughter] i knew senator demint was here so i had to throw that in order sometimes some baptize babies. no problem. we will get someone else to do that. you can stay committed to your conscience. i don't see it as a serious problem. for my 27 years. >> hi. my name is antonio chavez and i'm a science teacher. i met in democracy in america also religion was essential to

american mockers see. democracy leaves a lot of selfish instincts of people and religion keeps things in check. when you look at what's happening in -- what do you think about that? >> the debate about whether or not alexis de tocqueville actually said that, there's a debate about the famous alexis de tocqueville "america strong because america is good when america ceases to be good america ceases to be strong for what every hippie didn't say he should have said it. it's basically a paraphrased a proverb 13:44. righteousness exalts the nation but sin is a reproach to many people. sin is an equal opportunity destroyer. sin does not care that you are -- and if you look at empires that

have imploded, babylon the persian empire alexander the great, greece, rome and the decline of the roman empire, sin can destroy. i think people of faith should recognize the contribution they make to national security. and i talk about genesis 18, abraham negotiating for the survival of sodom and gomorrah. he started up around 35 and whittled it down to 10. he figured there has to be at least 10 righteous folk. after all you have lot and he has daughters, a wife and if he is doing in kind of work, so i believe alexis de tocqueville is on target that we do need to

appreciate goodness and celebrate goodness and be willing to die for goodness because it's a national security issue. anyone from my staff? [laughter] >> if not -- [applause] >> we do of course have copies of both of his books available if you would like to have them signed by chaplain black. while i do have the podium i do want to thank you chaplain black for your service to the nation and your career in the navy. thank you for your service to the senate where we know they need as much help as they can get. thank you for your wonderful example and you have an open invitation to come and visit us anytime. thank you and thank you all.

[applause] >> nobel peace prize winner elie wiesel spoke at the holocaust museum in washington d.c.. you can watch this entire event is c-span.org and here's a part of what he had to say. >> we believe that opening up the gates of our memories are bringing people closer together. it brings people to a realization of what is first a human being, a person an individual can do. i think of those who save lives. all these christians who save lives while risking their own.

every one of them is a hero. [applause] i also remember i was so involved for this extraordinary group of people. they organized a group of liberators. we brought liberators from all over the world. and i spoke to them. i said you are now the first to have seen us. you were the first three men and women who have seen us inside. upr witnesses. i remember i was going from one to the other, members of the resistance in poland and hungary

and everywhere. i said what gave you the courage to resist? gave you the courage to become a hero? we are hero's? one said look, if my neighbor was in danger how could i not offer him a place in my cellar or my at a? if a child was running in this street how could i not open the door to save him or her. i said to myself in those times it was enough to be human, to become a hero. my good friends, we are trying here not to make him a hero but to make the visitor a messenger. president clinton 20 yearsago

here in this place outside, it was raining. we were soaked, both you and i. our shoes were in the water. i saw them, yours and mine. i remember then that i came to speak. mary ann and i had worked on my speech the entire night, literally the entire night. then i opened my folder. if ever i was close to a heart attack, it was then. it was soaked. [laughter] i couldn't decipher a word. i tried to remember what i said. it would have been a disaster. so i had to improvise a new one. that is when i turned to you

mr. president and i spoke to you about yugoslavia. i had just come back from their. in the name of our memory, what we must do to help those from becoming victims of one another. and i remember you promised america will do and then you were kind enough to send it unnecessary to yugoslavia. that woman mr. president you have probably forgotten by, my wife myself or my friends but that is when you and i became friends. that is one of the most noble -- without any fanatical danger, the most beautiful one.

and to have you here now 20 years later is more than a privilege. it is a gift.

see i am sitting down, so youyo can sit down. comeu on. i am hobbling around a bit. can you hear? is it all right? no?w can no. does this have to be turned on

or what is the right into it? oh dear.st [laughter] now can you hear better? i actually didn't get an offer for my first job so let's get the introduction changed a little bit. i happy attended stanford law school and inh the process, i m, my husband to be, john o'connore and hec was a year behind me in law school. we decided to get married and i graduated from law school.oble g we both liked to eden that meant one of us was going to have to work. since i was out of law school,ds that was me. i thght oh no probgea jo there were at least 40 notices on stanford's bulletin board of the law school for law firms in california saying stanford law p graduates, we have this, but he would be happy to talk to youll

about job opportunities. give us aeti call. there were 40 different messages for different law firms on the bulletin board. so i called every one of thosewe offices. not a single one would even givt me an interview. i said, why? they said we don't hire women. that was the way it was. now i got out of law schoolid nd about 1952 but isn't that amazing? they wouldn't even talk. and i really did need to get a a job. [laughter] i heard that the county san mateo california in redwood citd had once had a woman lawyer on the staff so i thought that'stt encouraging.o i will go see him and i made an appointment to see him. in california they elect them county attorney.

they are always glad hander's. e i went to meet him and he was very nice, very agreeable and he said he had a woman on his stafd that wanted to meet. she did well and he would bea happy to have another. i had a good resume and i would be fine but the problem he would have if he got his money from the county board ofhe superviso. he had spent his money and he had no more income for the year so he was not able to hire anybody else. he he feltsorry because i could be hired but not without any money.e and then he said also, i will show you around the office anddo he did. he said is you can see i don't have a vacant office to put't another deputy so i have to figure something out. so it said, well i understand. i said i know you don't have anm money but i will work for you

foro nothing. until such time as the supervisor makes more money. i said i will do that. that kind of took us -- took his breath away. and then i said and i met your secretary. she is veryat w nice.y there is room in her office to put a second desk if she se wouldn't object and that was my first job as acr lawyer. no pay and i put my desk in with the secretary. but, i loved my job. i it was so interesting. i liked everything i got to do and it was very exciting to me i did. is what it worked out fine. i don't remember how long i was there before he managed to find a little money in his account with the county. until i think one of the deputies must have left for

another job and opened an office so everything turned out all right. all right. but it was pretty tough sledding getting that first job. i felt sorry for the other women who were in law school who were. getting out and looking for work because there was no real opportunity for womenw lawyers t >> that time. i am reading the new book out by, what's her name? sharon booze? i have beeno reading that.h it's a good story and you hadab better read it too. it's amazing how things have changed. i am very glad that i was able to be a little bit of that change in america for women.

i was working happily along in my jobs in arizona when i wasd h sitting -- i have become a judge on the court of appeals and in that was in m y office one day when the telephone rang. i answered an operator' said, this is the white house calling. is justice o'connor there? there?uld i was justice at that point on the arizona court.[lau ite said yes and they said well he it's the president calling.l would you put her on?it w i said this a she. [laughter], hello? it was ronald reagan on the phone. and he said sandra, how aboutyor that? first name basis. [laughter] he says yes mr. president? he said, i would like to announce her nomination tomorrow to the supreme court. is that okay with you?sa now that is quote unquote what

happened.i whaha [laughter] i kind of gulped and i said well yes mr. president i think it is. and so that is what happened.ck [laughter]on my he had sent 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 and all three branches of the arizona state government in the preceding years and of course i left some kind of the tracker behind.anything 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. i guess they haven't uncovered anything that looked scary, so he decided to do that. i was at home the date they

wanted to come out and reallyain talk to me. my husband and ih had built an adobe house in the phoenix area when we moved there in 1957. that was a real challenge sun because adobe's ours soldd commonly but in this country today it's hard to go by the adobe bricks that somebody hasma made and dried them in a frameed in the sun until they are dry and fairly firm. that is what we wanted to use. i met a man who lived on cattle track road and sun-dried adoben houses and he could tell us howd toe get sun-dried adobe.house we followed his advice and goted some and found a starving young architect who isa willing to design a house even if liz

sun-dried adobe's. i just loved it. it was so fun. until you have seen and touched sun-dried adobe youth can't appreciate why i looked it so much -- why i like to so much. it looks good and it feels good and it's wonderful and arizona i sunshine. it really is. that is what we used to buildvhn their house and i loved it verye much. when the president made his call and i agreed to come back to washington d.c., we learned housing prices in d.c. are veryu highse.e so we had to sell our little sun-drie d adobe house and raise a little money so we could getas something to live in d.c.. and we did. that was painful to have that happen. an interesting thing has happened since and i'm wondering 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 organization. to support the o'connor house, and we use it as it plays where civil thoughts leads to civic action. and i like that because -- [applause] h it is what we need a lot moreas of. congress needs that in the state legislatures needed. when i had that house my husband and i were living in it and i was a legislative leader. i would cook some mexican food of some kind, chill ... or something that stays hot on the low burner of the stove and i would buy some cold beer and i

d would invite the key people on both sides of the aisle and the legislature and just have them come over to have a bite to be and ar beer. when you sit around like that h and speak casually in a friendly manner as you would with friends or accordance is, 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 is what i would like to see more of. in the present we are using the o'connor house to get legislators together over beers and chill with us and see ifha they can't solve some of arizona's problems and i think it's working. that is the effort now. what i felt when i was in my years in the court before iis

retired, was that we werea failing to teach young people n this country anything about how our government operates. two-thirds of high school grads today score below proficiency on anys kind of -- only one third of americans can name the three branches of government let alone say what they do.7 imagine that.it only 27% can identify the purpose of the u.s. constitution and it's right there in the title. now -- s [laughter] less than one fifth of higha school seniors can explain how citizen participation helps any democracy.puo only 22% of eighth-graders can

namet any purpose met by the u.. supreme court. now that's very painful for me. [laughter]er among 14,000 seniors in college which participated in a survey, the average score on the civics, exam was just barely over 50%.h now, this lack of knowledge does lead to disengagement. about half of the 14-year-olds in the united states say that there are political attitude is indifferent or alienated. countrr constitution was adopted, we didn't have public schools in america. that came later, and, in fact, it was 30 years after the constitution was adopted that people began to say we need

schools in the country to teach the young people how this new government of ours work, how it's supposed to work and how they are a part of it. well, they were right. we did neat to educate the young people, and that's what started public schools. today, we are having public schools that no longer teach civics. they don't require them for high school graduation, classes and civics, and they are barely fought. i don't know about now, but when i went to school, i went to grade school and high school in el paso, texas, grew up on a ranch, 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, but i think that that's a lot better than having none.

already so i was very concern at the time when i announced my retirement about the lack ofany nationwide knowledge of civics so i decided in retirement i had time for volunteer work, and maybe i could get started, a plan to teach civics, and so i started something that we call icivics. now, we have ipads and ipods and "i" everything so i thought icivics would be good. [laughter] it is. we got it going, and what i did was assemble the most wonderful group of teachers who really know the subject and what the young people particularly in middle school up to first year high school should know about civics. so with their help and with the

help of some experts in writing to exams and we put together the icivics website, and what we do is create games on the website. it's www.icivics.org. look at it. i'll remind you what it is so you can write it down. [laughter] we have games on it the young people play, and they are fun to play. we have now, i think, about 19 up, and it's great fun. the young people who get on it, stay on it all night until their parents say, now, go to bed, turn that off, go to bed, and it's terrific. teachers use it at school find it's very satisfactory. the main problem today is that most was schools don't list sighings anymore as a subject to be taught, and so it makes it

harder for teachers tond tim to teach civics, and that's been my major effort since stepping down from the court is to start and continue and expand the teaching of icivics, and we now have a minimum of 30 thousands people a day plubbed into icivics. i want a lot more than that. that's just a start, but it's extremely effective. baylor university in texas did a study of it, and took it in three or four schools in the area near baylor and left it in place for awhile and then tested the students, and baylor came back with not a good review, you a raging review saying it's incredible, that is really is effective, and so that's my major effort now.

that's how i'm spending my time as retired justice except that i also sit with the federal courts of appeals. now, you know the federal court system consistenting of district courts where trials in federal cases are tried, and then if the loser appeals, the appeal goes to a federal court of appeals, and we have a number of federal circuit courts of appeal scattered around the country, and the only release is with the u.s. supreme court, and their grant of jurisdiction is discretionary with the court and not too many cases are granted, sco that's how the system works today, and i volunteer periodically to sit on one of

the federal courts of appeal and hear a number of cases for two or three days, and today, and 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 the 9th circuit some months back and heard that case, and we rendered a decision, and the losers didn't like the results, and they filed a petition with the u.s. supreme court which took it, and it was argued today. i had the pleasure of sitting in the courtroom listening to the lawyers argue about the case that i had participated in deciding some months before at the court of appeals level, and that was kind of fun to do. i have to say, and i think what we've done tonight is to see if you didn't have various questions that you thought you

thghry some ofthem.lk about, and if they don't go so well, i'll go back and abandon those and just talk. [laughter] [applause] >> all right, justices, i have some questions here. >> i don't like this in my neck. let's go here where we can tal. .. errupt me while i ask questions. [laughter] could you describe what you were thinking or feeling the first and/or last time you walked through the curtain to take your place on the court bench?

>> well, the first time scary. [laughter] the last time, used to it, but the first time was really ,owis in and i couldn't believe i couldn't believe that i was, in fact, now sitting as a member of the u.s. supreme court.bor of course that had never 04 and a woman on its panel of judges. that was a very special event for the court, and i'm thinking it was a difference. when i today, and look up at tht bench, i see three women sitting there. [applause] >> there are also six men, but the overall assessment is a lot better. [laughter] >> okay.

>> they gave me my on mic here. any traditions or rituals that go on behind the seans at the court, and that you are fond of? >> oh, yes! well, i'll start with the first. [laughter] 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. now, that is really special. i don't know how you feel about it, imu to shake hands with someone. now, come on over here. [laughter] to shake hands with someone is meaningful. it is. you touch their hand, shake it, and it's much more effective then to work together as a court and decide the cases, and that was just marvelous, but on that first day, come back --

[laughter] the justice, a former major athlete, and he took my hand, and i thought i was going to die. [laughter] i mean, honestly, here. [laughter] sprang, out of my eyes. there was nothing i could do. he killed me. [laughter] it was byron white. now, do you remember who he was? my god, he was a professional football player, and i don't know what all. he was amazing. he about killed me. see what i'm doing? i grabbed his thumb, and i did that for the remaining years that he and i were tboat on that court.

[laughter] >> i think i'll stand back here. [laughter] you think female judges have a unique perspective? if so, in what way, and how does it influence? >> no, i don't think they do, really, i mean, overall male or female, as a justice, you've gone to law school, you studied law, and you've had some experience, maybe as a trail judge or a state judge or in your law practice,ing? practice, something, and so you come there with some experience that is shared with the man who's done the same thing, so i don't think you come in with some preset at -- attitude or experience something vastly different from that or the other stuff. i really don't. now, it could be at some stage

of the proceeding that as a former wife and mother, i might look at some domestic relations case with somewhat different views than maybe a justice who was never been married or had children. that's possible, but i don't think by and large that you'd find many with totally different approaches. >> do you think cameras should 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 accustomed to events, and so far, the supreme court has not permitted cameras to come into the supreme court chamber. it probably doesn't matter much as a practical matter because by

nighttime, every day that cases are heard of the court, you can get a full transscript of everything that was said that day in the courtroom. by the lawyers and the judges, the justices. it's all transcribed, available, and in writing. it is completely available almost immediately, and i don't think that the absence of seeing that on a television screen opposed to reading it in whatever form it comes out is that significant people are accustomed in this country to seeing everything on the television so it's a little frustrating, i guess, for some to think it's not fair, but i don't think that it's a cause for major concern because of the fact that, in fact, it is there in writing. you can see what was said.

>> advice do you gie a young female tarn interested in becoming a judge? >> well, if you want to be a judge, first of all, you have to be a good law student. you really need to prove that in law school and elsewhere, you established a record as someone who does understand and know legal principles and who can write well. that's very important because as a judge, you're probably going to have to write your opinions and express yourself well, so that's important, and you want to be able to demonstrate based on articles that you've written and published and books you wrote and published, that you have some compart -- capacity to understand legal issues and to write about them. i think that's very helpful in the selection of an appellate court judge.

>> the court had moments of part sapp ship dating back to the beginning. do you feel dating back to recent history in world war ii that partisanship is causing uncivilty today? >> it's not as bad as it was than earlier times in the nation's history. i don't. when you look back in the early days of the country, at thomas jefferson, things going on in the court, when he was there, when jour marshall was our chief justice, they were second cousins, approximately, maybe second once removed. i'm not sure. they were cousins, but they were not the kissing kind. they did not like each other. it was really unpleasant, and, yet, they had many issues to resolve that affected our nation, and it's amazing that we got through all those days and

did well. we don't have anything like that today. we have many cases where the justices may end up disagreeing on the bottom line. you're not going to find it 9-zip every time, once in a while, but usually there's division on the court, and that's very normal, but in the early days of the country, there was real hostility among the justices, i'm sorry to say. >> what's the number one question the other female justices asked you about being on the supreme court? >> well, they've not asked me anything. [laughter] they yows go to work and do it. >> what should they can me? >> i don't think there is anything they should ask me. maybe how the lunchroom works and how to get better lunches or something. that would be the only kind of thing i can help with probably.

>> was there any decision made based op how it was interpreted or otherwise followed up that you now wish you had voted differently on? >> i don't look back, and now that's one thing i have learned in life, and that is to do the very best you can every day with whatever problems you have and required to decide, make a decision, and then don't look back. i don't look back. i'm sure i've made plenty of mistakes, but i don't need to look back at them. [laughter] i've been there, done that. [laughter] >> here's another advice question. based op the state of the current job market, what advice would you give someone considering law school? >> well, i'm going to tell them that they won't, perhaps, immediately have the kind of job they'd like because it seems to

me there are more lawyers available for hire than there are jobs available for lawyers. it is tougher to get a job now as a lawyer, right now, than it used to be, so it may be a more challenging choice of a place to work. i'm sure it will even out over time, but if i were being asked that by someone in law school today, i would tell them not to rush to get out because they might have a hard time getting a job. [laughter] >> in cases that depend on science and technology expertise, how do you identify and then find such expertise? >> well, i don't have to do that as the judge. i only have to decide each case based on the evidence presented to the court, and in the case of

an appellate court, which the supreme court is, the evidence has been introduced and presented at the trial court level. in the first court to hear the case, that's where the evidence comes in, and it's a matter of record. it's a matter -- it's in the record on that case, and so if you want to look back, as the appellate court judge at what was in the record at the time the case was resolved, it's all there in writing, all there in the record, and you don't have to fish around, and you're limited to deciding it based on what is in the record. >> will any of the stories in this book book make it into your icivics curriculum? >> oh, in the new book? >> yes. >> oh, i doubt it, or i might have put it in already. i don't think so, no, no, i don't think so. [laughter] >> why do all the controversial cases come out at the end of the year? >> well, they don't all, but i

would say maybe a majority tend to come out at the end of the year because the cases that end up producing several opinions, both for and against the decision, both opinions supporting it and those dissenting machines that do not support it, and they require writing, and sometimes considerable writings to produce a dissent or an opinion agreeing with the that -- majority, but for different reasons. it takes a long time, sometimes, to write all of those up meaning often the last cases to be handed down for a term tend to be the cases that have produced the most amount of writing because it just took more time to put all that together.

>> justice, one more question here. what do you do to unwind after a particularly stressful day? >> well, i -- that's not my practice to worry about how to unwind at the end of the day. i just -- [laughter] i like to start my day with some kind of exercise. that's how i like to start it, and the first thing i did, the very first day that i got the supreme court of the united states, i got on the telephone, and i called the ywca here in washington, d.c. and talked to somebody there on the the staff, and i asked if they could find someone who could come to the court and teach an exercise class early in the morning, and they said they thought they could find someone, and they did, and they sent a young woman down, and she stayed with us for a number of years giving an exercise class early in the

morning on at least three days a week, and that's what i want because i don't know about you, but i like starting by day with an exercise class, just giving me more energy for the rest of the day. i thought it was a great way to start the day, and i think the court still end joys the privilege of having an exercise class early in the morning. >> will you stay and sign books for anyone? >> not for everyone. there's too many people here. [laughter] i'll sign until i give out, okay? all right. anyway, it's been nice to talk to you. [applause]

>> the intelligence yet is driven by this certainty that religion and reason are in different boxes, science and religion are in different boxes, and that to actually are at war with each other. they are a medical to each other. someone who is rational is not religious. some of his religious is not rational. it's an attitude to religion, national, the antidote to religion, irrationality. now, this itself is the ultimate irrational idea because of relief that religion is a medical says science and reason in the west is completely untrue. religion and depend sign sanders -- reason. >> author melanie phillips takes your calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweet three hours live sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> next, a discussion on the

supreme court with authors and academics to follow the high court from georgetown law center in washington this is an hour. and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. i want to welcome you to today's program, which features an all-star lineup of authors whoof will be discussing their mostr recent books on the supremet court.ere i am a professor here atgeortown georgetown, and executive director of the supreme courte. institute.rivil it is a real privilege for the supreme court institute to hostt this event, and i would like to thank our deputy director putting it all together. before i turn the program over to our moderator, i'd like to remind everyone that after the program, we have a reception following in which you'll get a chance to have all your newly purchased books signedded by the authors, have a word or two with the authors, hopefully, and as

you can see, we have food and beverage so please stick around after the program. with that, i would like to introduce our moderator today for today's program, tony, he really needs to introduction at all, so i will keep it short, and i'll tell you just that tony has long been one of the nation's most influential journalists covering the supreme court. he is currently the supreme court correspondence for the national law journal, and in his work on the supreme court insider is must reading for anyone who wants to figure out what's going on in the court today, so with that, tony, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. a kind introduction, and thank you for the work on the pam. it's a great treat to be here as moderator of this event. i've written enthusiastically

about every author here. i'm a big fan of anybody who sheds more light on the supreme court, and they've all done a great job of that. thank you, at #* -- audience for attending, and c-span, and booktv for being here as well. in should be a fun hour. we're here to celebrate and explore a category of books that seems to be growing, books both nonfiction and fiction about the supreme cowfort of -- court of the united states. i supreme court doesn't come up in presidential debates, but it does generate a lot of books. i can tell that from the pile of books on my desk that come in, and i never quite get to all, unfortunately. the authors show the range of works about the supreme court. we have claire cushman who wrote a mystery of the personalities

on the court. we have jeffrey tubin, latest book is as fresh as today's headlines or breaking news alerts. there's fiction, too. anthony francis book is a fast taste thriller in which six justices are shot by the second page. [laughter] along the way, though, it touches a lot -- it teaches a lot about how the supreme court works. there'sed to peppers and art ward who wrote several books about the justices and their law courts, and there's a fascinating relationship. what do the books have in common other than the supreme court? the answer is, i believe, that all these books are built on the founding assumption that the spreerm court is about more than just its opinions. to understand it fully, you need to know about the justices' backgrounds, their personalities, their foils, perm

dynamics, and with each other, and with their clerks. this is a perspective not always popular with the supreme court, which is an intensity private institution. i remember vividly when i was writing about the court's pension for privacy in 1993, and that the court's spokeswoman, then tony house, told me very firmly that the court, and this is a quote, the court is perfectly comfortable being in the public eye as an institution, but not as individual justices. they don't think that whether they play tennis or play championships, that they are championship fox trotters has anything to do with whether or not they are good justices, but things are changing, contrast that with what chief justice roberts wrote in a forward to claire's book last year. the book, he said, sets aside the black robes and goes into the private side of life on the court, capturing vignettes of relations among friends, family, and one another. her book will delight all those

who want to look beyond the portraits and gain an intimate view of the individuals who have quietly contributed so much to the work of the court and the advancement of justice. we're in a new era, really, of the supreme court historically, and i think we have to embrace it. in my own career, certainly, i've emphasized these aspects of the court as much as the. s of the court, and certainly makes for interesting reading as all of the authors illustrate, so to start it off, i think i'll ask a question about this point, whether why personality and background are important, and i hope the panelists use this as an poupt to talk about their books and tell stories with further discussion, and eventually, i'll open it to the audience, and there's a microphone that i'll ask you to use in the center aisle here. first, i'll ask claire to speak

about the court, "book watchers," director of the historical society, so maybe you can tell us about the book and some examples through history about how personalities played ang important role and how the supreme court does its work. >> thanks, tony. well, i wrote a one volume narrative history of the supreme court that has absolutely no case law in it, which is a little bit shocking to some people, but my intent was really to show a history of the institution and its practices and traditions, and how they've evolved over time, and what i really want the to show was what it's like to be a supreme court justice or what it has been like so fill that role, and how the justices go about doing their jobs something that really is very relatable to a more general audience than a sophisticated legal audience, the themes that

interest me in supreme court history are things like how a newly appointed justice learns the ropes and gets broke p in, how the justices collaborate and work together, how they manage the work, how they get it done, how they deploy clerks to get it done, and then also interested in showing how the justices know when it's time to go, time to retire, so i looked at themes and lookedded at oral arguments, which probably has a tradition of the court that changed the most in the 2 # -- 200 years. under the court, the oral advocates had up limited time to get the views across, and, n.,

they liked to lace speeches with illusions to shakespeare, the bible, and roman law, and they equally address the ladies in the courtroom audience and who were all dressed up to come here the speeches as they were the justices, but in those days, the justices had not been given written briefs before the cases, and they often had not thought about the case much before the oral argument started so they salt in wrappedded silence listening. obviously, oral argument changed enormously over time, and the introduction of written briefs in the 1840s changed things as did the widdling down of time, and as you all know, we now see these poor advocates who only have 30 minutes to get the points across, and the justices who are fully briefed on the case, know it inside and out, jump in quickly and ask them

questions, so the -- that's one example of looking at a supreme court practice that changed enormously, but i wanted to show what have not changed. traditions, as you know, the court is tradition bound. that's stayed the same. for example, how the justices feel about their salaries. [laughter] as you know, the chief justice roberts was active to get congress to raise the salaries of all including supreme court justices who make, you know, significantly less than they would in the private sector, but even compared to say, a law school dean or senior law professor, there's a great gab, but i went back and looked at the same issue in the 1810s and looked at how they had a story and talked about the salary, complained to congress, and asked for a raise complaining that, ewe know, daniel webster,

one of the great oral advocates was making 30 times as much. i went and looked at the same issue in the 1860s and chief justice chase said the same thing, you know, the retired generals who fought in the civil war make more than we are, so we both traced the evolution of a lot of the customs and practices, but the way i went about sharing history was using eyewitness antedotes to give color and life to what could be a dry book, if you just write about institutional practices, most fall asleep, so i used letters, memoirs, diaries, old interviews, current interviews of justices to try to bring it to life. do you want me to talk about favorite sources or did >> yes. >> okay. so a lot of the -- excuse me --

a lot of the sources i drew on are well-known to scholars, but some of them have been neglected or have not seen the light of day in the last 50 years, so i dredge up a lot of old things, but one of the sources i drew on a lot is the diary of elizabeth black who was hugo black's second wife, his secretary, and they were marrieded in 1956, and she kept a diary until his death in 71. she was a great woman with a great sense of humor who jotted down what was going on every day at home, and i love this source because it shows what happens in the day of the justice after he leaves the court and goes home, takes work home with him, and is struggling with cases and using his wife as a sounding board. do you think i would just read a tiny bit from the diary?

>> absolutely. >> okay, because i -- sorry. one of the things about eyewitness accounts is that you really can't describe them. you can't paraphrase them. you have to go right to the source. honest and variably on an upon he thinks to be very important, hugo awakens in the middle of the night thinking about it. soon, he pulls the chain to turn on the light. darling, he says to me, are you awake? by that time, i am, of course, fully awake. i am bothered about a case. tell me about it, i say. well, this is what it's all about. then he recounts in detail and passion the horrible injustice perpetrated on a person because

of his failure to see it his way. i'll have to ride itan nor row grounds to get a court, he says, meaning those he has with him and those againstment sometimes this unwinds him. sometimes not. if he doesn't feel he can sleep, he says, now, it's three o'clock in the morning, i just got to be fresh for the conference tomorrow. i need sleep. what do you think i ought to do? then i suggest, why don't you take a little bourbon to make you sleepy. hugo is terribly inhibitive about taking liquor and wants me to suggest it, rein so he pours a splash of bourbon on ice, fills the glass with water, and soon is sound asleep. [laughter] the next morning awake pes as bright and clear minded as can be, and approaches the day with his usual zest for life and vast good humor. just one of many thousands of antedotes in the book that i hope give the court more of a

human face to help people really understand what it's like to be the supreme court justice, and how they go about doing their work. >> okay, thank you. next, a partner at the dc firm of arnold and porter, p spending many days writing not about the supreme court, but to the supreme court in the form of briefs. he's here to talk about the book, not briefs. it's the legal thriller called "the last justice," and now you researched the court for this book. tell us how -- about your take on the importance of personalities in understanding the court and the solicitor general as well. >> well, with regard to the justices, as tony mentioned, first couple pages of the book, nearly the entire supreme court is, there's not many surviving justices left in the book to go too much into their character, but i, you know, personalities

mean a lot, you know, from a fiction writer's perspective it's about the characters. you request -- you can have the best plot around, but if the reader doesn't care for the characters, it's not going to matter, so i, you know, i research. i read everything i would about these path justices and really the judicial community, and tried to, you know, bring some of that to life. now, you know, this is a legal thriller, so you got to take liberties. i've never met anybody who engaged in all of this horrible things that the people do in my books, but, you know, disruptive try and make it, the characters believable, at least in the context in which their daily lives and the roles they playeded, so i did get a reality check about the realism of my characters. goit -- i got an e-mail from a federal court of appeals judge who had

comments about my characterization of judges, and i really enjoyed the e mile -- e e-mail, so i asked the judge if he mind if i shared it, and he said, essentially, you know, i got life tenure, why not. go for it. [laughter] here it is. dr. mr. frans, i read your novel, read it cover to cover in a few days, and i really enjoyed. it so far i like the judge. i do have one gripe, however. the justices and judges in the novel seem, to me, to be highly sexualized than in real life. [laughter] at least in my experience. [laughter] i suppose, however, your characters give juris everywhere something to aspire to. [laughter] so maybe i didn't get everything quite perfect about the

characters, but to bring it back to the personalities and dynamics, you know, for me, it's not about the big decisions, what i'm trying to come up with, these people who are not real, you know, it's fiction, but, you know, i hone in on some of the personal things you read about the justices. you know, for me, you know, the fact that one of the justices was in charge of putting a yo gunshot machine in the courtroom's calf fear ya. the fact last week reports asked what's one of the things you don't care for about your role, and, you know, he, like many of us, said i hate all the administrative work that doesn't deal with the decisions, and it's those things i grasp on to that make justices human and relate to them more and readers relate to them more, and so that was the thing i trieded to capture in, you know, the characters in the novel. >> i think your book is maybe one of the few books that gives a central role to the solicitor

general not normally viewed as a highly dramatic position, but it works very well. next i want to talk -- ask jeffrey to speak. a legal analyst for cnn, and staff write r for with the the new yorker," a wonderful writer, and his new book "the oath," his second on the supreme court. i just finished reading it, and he does a great job of shifting back and forth between the court's people and its doctrines. you'll notice the "new york times" review of the book, which appears tomorrow, talk about that emphasis on personalities as well as opinions so -- >> well, let me talk about the supreme court by the numbers for starters. there are six men and three women. first time in history there's three women on the court. there are six catholics and three jews. first time in history there's no protestants on the supreme

court. there's representatives of four new york city burroughs on the supreme court. the bronx, queens, brooklyn, and manhattan. tragically, stan ten island is unrepresented on the supreme court. anyway, so those are some facts about the supreme court which i hope are interesting. here's a fact about the supreme court that is important. there are five republicans and four democrats. the supreme court, to me, anyway, is most important as a political institution that renders largely political judgments about the issues that come before it. i don't say that as criticism. i often, in forums like this, hear, well, like, why do they have to do so much politics? can't they just decide the law? when they decide questions, like, does the constitution protect the woman's right to an

abortion, do you consider race in admissions? those are political issues as well as legal issues, and i'm most concerne about thecrt as an ideological and political institution, and that is reflected through the personalities of the justices, but mostly, it's reflected through their ideologies, and i am, obviously, very interested in the justices as people, but, to me, what's most interesting about them is their political views, for example, the last three justices to leave the court, three more different human beings you will never end consistenter. sandra day o'connor, this tall, out going, charismatic former politician from arizona. david suiter, the shy reclusive bachelor from numplegz. john paul stevens, a wily antitrust lawyer from chicago,

totally different personalities, but what do they have in common? all moderate republicans who left the supreme court completely alienated from the modern republican party, and that is what important about them to me. just as moderate republicans disappeared from the united states senate age -- and certainly the united states house of representatives, they disappeared from the supreme court, and that, to me, is the most significant thing about the supreme court which is the decisions they reach, why they reach them, and why the decisions matter to people in the real world. ..

>> and mr. coleman who is now 93 and works 12 hours a day is nbc was of interest to me as the subject because he was the first black law clerk on the supreme court. i got a good rate to stay at the mayflower hotel in washington d.c. and went over the next morning to interview him. and bill asked me where i stayed the night before and i told him the mayflower and

in his matter-of-fact voice said in 1948 when i clerked they would not serve me at the mayflower. he started to tell me a story about lunchtime when he and his:clerk who would go on to hold more cabinet positions were planning a lunch outing at the mayflower and a couple of minutes before they would leave, at the eliot came back in chambers there was a hushed conversation and they came out and was educated in close to tears then he said we have to get back some marks the let's go to union station which happened to be one of the only three places in town that would serve people of color in 1948. that crystallizes why i enjoyed studying law clerks because of his personality

to the justices and clerks who have gone on to fame and fortune of their own warren christopher secretary of state working for bill douglas who had five law clerks to return to the supreme court and i enjoy the stories with the relationships because they shed light on the relationship between judicial attitudes and personalities and behavior and also because the supreme court clerkship is number one with internships in the country and in 1998 when i was in graduate school thinking about doing my dissertation on the clerk's with a series of articles in "usa today" written by tony moral about the law clerks the supreme court justices hiring practices and the justices were not hiring very many women or people of color and those issues are also important because they

raise questions about social justice in terms of if the supreme court follows its own dictates with the level playing field for all people in the workplace. i have been studying law clerks maybe since 1998 or 2000 and what captivates me are the stories. of the dining at john marshall wrote back to hear the local hospital dying of cancer and the fact that frankfurter died penniless but for the next 15 years his clerks collectively took care of his wife and the stories of the holmes law clerks you can never wrong talking about holmes and at the same thing with the law clerks. for holmes he was a surrogate children the

individuals which had to listen to his stories about the civil war whether they wanted to or not an holmes and his law clerks with lot from the district of columbia to talk about petitions and holmes one of his law clerks from the new deal and when corcoran could not keep of his end of the argument about god and the universe he was assigned the task of reading the old testament to the comeback to continue the argument. those types of stories captivate me. and i think show one aspect of the supreme court clerk ships which has vanished or is vanishing. says you have one or maybe two law clerks. but the pressures were not there like they are today. to david justice's have four or five clerks they are consumed with questions about secrecy and

confidentiality and now nine little law firms i don't think they have time to walk around the district of columbia like holmes like to do overstep the midnight with hugo black arguing about jefferson and his views of the role of church a lot of those stories are lost in what we enjoy is to find the story to preserve them. >> really decided 64 cases last year they should have time to walk around to looking at every flower in washington. [laughter] with you only have four law clerks and all of the beautiful briefs you thank you would have time to pick to lips but they are working >> and briefly the other thing which is fascinating

is the justices attitude toward the law clerks. scalia gave a talk and at 1. told the american university of law students he could not afford to hire them not with a salary but could not take a chance on them because the work of the court was so important that god forbid he get a aa might nop to snuff but then they want to maintain that they do all their own work you cannot have it both ways but the same time that the system is so important we cannot look beyond harvard or yale or stanford. >> that is a very good point* but one thing to say is 100 years ago they did to their own work and there were no clerks how did they possibly get anything done? i want to agree with what jeff had to say about the politics and expand what he had to say not only those

other crucial but among the clerks from those of different chambers and the justices that is what interests me with a small working groups of individuals better dealing with the biggest political issues of the day so when i do research on clerks what i find is the clerks are influenza role in the process and i notice controversial to say so but if you look at the process is you find they are required to give opinions on the matters that are decided by the court potentially. they lobby the justices and they must to say we should take this case are we should not. not just in terms of the law but whether it is a good time to take the case politically because there is

a presidential election going on these political issues are what fascinate me. and also the idea of the clerk network that they eat lunch together and play basketball together and commute to work together and endlessly talking about the cases and with the justices stand the you think you're just as could move then this direction if i got mine to say that? so they are the go-between's or their intermediaries of the coalition formation but the justices don't talk to each other that much anymore they don't call each other on the phone hardly it is the clerks that have those conversations that is one of the things i am interested in. senate before we move to the next question tuesday on the

subject of clerks in the context of what happened we saw this summer the leaks that occurred after the court term and it with the back and forth concerning the affordable care act decisions with the landmark cases of obamacare. there has been a lot of talk if the clerks were the source because they swear to confidentiality. what is your thought about the leaks and how they came about? >> can we at least say how great day are the pretentiousness of the self importance that comes as the supreme court clerkship not all of them to be sure but certainly in my experience

is part of it. the ones to talk to me as explicit judgment. [laughter] and their very fine people but it is mostly the ones that hang up on me that i speak about. [laughter] i was very surprised what went on this summer and i reconstructed it for my chapter on the deliberations in the affordable care act case it was indicative of the high stakes the case and the peculiar and unexpected roll that john roberts played just to fill people in, chief justice roberts was the vote in motion during the deliberation and he moved to a more pro affordable care act position over the course of the delibations it was

argued in march and decided june 2018 and in may, a conservative columnist and editorial page started writing pieces that said we hear that chief justice roberts is getting wobbly on the affordable care act and we want him to show how tough he will be and then "national review" writer and editor gave a speech at princeton saying my sources at the supreme court say robert's is moving to a pro affordable care act position which is extraordinary and he was quite right i believe they did come from the clerks perhaps to the judge's to those a clerk for in the circuit court but then into the bloodstream but my position is generally

pro league and disclosure. so what? i don't see what harm was done and understand why this process has to be so mystified, a secret and obviously within some reason but it is illustrative of how passionately conservatives felt about the case but i don't think there is any particular harm to it >> a small working group of sandra day o'connor and byron white and brendon had day klerk code of conduct that may have been slightly tweet then adopted by the court 1989. you and i cannot write the court and ask for a copy because the supreme court has refused to release it to the public which i think is

problematic but i found a copy in the personal papers of thoroughbred marshall but it says -- thurgood marshall but they have a confidentiality to the court and justices because there was some suggestion that maybe water to of the justices had authorized the clerks to talk and regardless of that is good or bad to live in a democratic society clearly violates the, at the code of conduct of confidentiality even you talky still violate your duties to the supreme court as an institution and over the last 20 years 30 year 40 years we have seen repeated instances of selective violations all the way through the book closed chambers and this spring and

i was not a supreme court law clerk by a clerk at the federal district law clerk i know that it is important and it bothers me because i do think they are violating the on going to be of confidentiality but as a researcher it delights me if nobody talks to me i have nothing to write about but there is a duty out there and i think it violates that. >> fate god. >> the justices are violating it themselves because it shows the five justices spoke for that book anonymous at the time but now we know who they are. if the justices are talking to the press and they may well have been how seriously can the courts take this agreement?

>> i want to get a view from all of the panelists on another area then we will bring in the audience. added is how you go about researching the court when you get the information when it is such a secretive organization. i never forget when chief justice rehnquist was talking to a group of reporters at a social event many years ago and there was sold in the conversation and rehnquist said the difference between us in the of their branches of government is we don't need you people. that is quite an icebreaker. [laughter] but by implication the supreme court does not need to book authors either.

so some of the justices are not interested to talk to reporters so how you go about your work in this regard piercing the privacy? >> what i want for christmas is mr. toobin and resources because you have done a wonderful job peeling back back curtain. >> let me just say about my sources i obviously called the clerks but some of them and the best thing that i did the single most useful trip i took was to west lafayette indiana. what was there? the c-span archives. brian lamb went to purdue and sent all his archives there. the justices are on c-span a lot. you'd be surprised how much is out there in plain sight.

they tell a lot of the justices they like to talk. they like to talk about themselves witches a common phenomenon with human interaction. and i went through a lot of the panel discussions and speeches and there was gold in their. unfortunately in between then they put the archives on the web so i was denied the pleasure to return but the same idea there were, my editor likes to say reporting in general you be amazed how much is in plain sight and i thought c-span was an example of how much was in plain sight. >> to flip the question around, one source is drying up and in most research i have gone to the library of

congress were justices have the personal papers and when harry blackmun's papers opened there was a push back by the court because the justice did not throw away anything. every sane goal christmas card a law clerk cent and it is there. now flash forward to byron's white papers and there is nothing there. there is not even a correspondence file and my concern is because some of us use these sources or the corps is more sensitive for political that the supreme court justices papers which historically were a wonderful source of information will go away. some are sealed for decades ann warren burger's papers cannot be open for another 10 years. and o'connor or suter i may

be dead will there be anything in them? i am worried about history. there is the famous story of bess truman birding truman's love letters and he said were you doing? think of history and she said i am thinking of history. i am rory the justices are thinking of history and it will be to our detriment. >> i want to speak about asking justices for interviews. i do think if you ask them for an interview on a particular topic that they feel comfortable about i interview justice beyer who is fairly easy to get an interview with about what it is like to be the junior justice because he was there for 11 years he was bested by story by a couple of weeks but he was happy to

talk to me about that particular aspect and house seniority plays into things. it is easier to approach them on certain topics than others and for my book i was planning to interview them all they don't know that but i was. c-span does a wonderful series of interviews with brian mann and susan swain to ask about the court building and they just are did to throw out other questions and got some fruitful response ising tiptoeing so when i was halfway to the book the transcripts came out and i realized all the questions i would have passed them were being cast by c-span and i just needed to extract the golden nugget's to put them in a narrative format to make them come alive. but the justices often when

they give interviews they answer questions in sort of the same way so i didn't feel that i needed to go back to reinvent the wheel except my own personal glory but it was out there. >> there is a lot of information out there already. and clare cushman mentioned already i am sure some of you notice when justice scalia was on his recent book to work he was asked about retirement and he did not give this dan did -- standard answer the first time in history with the justice said in multiple interviews i will retire under a like-minded president why would i establish an entire judicial record for decades then leave under president with the president to undo it?

he admitted it spent years trying to prove it huskily it comes out. [laughter] but i think when they are in public they might be willing to say more than we give them credit for sometimes. we can mine the information for clues as to what goes on. >> but try calling it justice to say i will write a legal thriller how someone assassinates all the justices. [laughter] of course, i did not do that but i realized on the great work that is out there which is a total coincidence i did try to get the supreme court history and procedure right and i read hundreds of articles and books and in my note section i point* out

the articles or the books that were the most helpful in that regard and dicing gold out the reporting in every panelist that i relied on as the complete coincidence but i do a great service to educating the public and everybody else about the court. >> i share todds concern about the future of the records that will be available from the justices and their papers. i ask once what the justices are doing about their e-mail's is there any regime for saving e-mail's? i was told no. there isn't much of a rule most of the communications on paper but there is no rule about the males and of course, those papers are not

viewed as public documents in the same way the presidential papers are. i once asked the archivist why the justices papers and not treated the same way? he said i have too many friends on the supreme court i don't think i'll answer that question which does not seem like that is very public doesn't seem like the public minded approach but anyway why don't we have questions from the audience? if you could go to the microphone there please. >> their reaction not that the justice leaked information that incredibly upset to put it mildly but have they been desensitized overtime with these leaks?

>> published in 1979, there was not a behind-the-scenes book of the supreme court court, putting aside the lazarists book with the journalistic book about the supreme court between 1979 and 2007 when i wrote the nine. i think there is some generational change and the justices who were on the court were of a very different generation where the press was not a major factor in their thinking. you now have several justices in their 50s to grew up in a different environment and i am not saying they're more welcoming to media attention, but they came

evade in a world where they and justice scalia has written the book and justice beyer events so my your is writing a memoir. this is personal publicity seeking on their part is different than historic klay and i think it is great when they write a book to talk about it and become more accessible. >> it is funny about the brethren because the law clerks that law clerk before felt that by iran's white changed afterwards in because he was a former naval intelligence officer in mysterious cliff the leaks and could not figure out and the clerks think something changed with the rules of the chamber involving discussions i

dunno if the other justices attitudes have changed but if you look at newspaper articles i think there was a lot that were just livid to talk about this young man should be tarred and feathered and scalia said if any of his law clerks did that he would hunt them down but some would be just as curious if that happened today. >> i would like to ask each of you if you would tell us your favorite humorous story of a justice that the supreme court. >> i would love to tell you my favorite story of

thurgood marshall when he had pneumonia and was taken in to bethesda and a long dash geneva naval hospital and k said was hoping to get a vacancy on the court to fill. one day when of marshall's doctors came to him and said the president has requested we send over your medical records and he was nowhere near death's door and marshall said of course, you can send them over but just give me of black sharpie so i can ride on the records and he said not yet exclamation point. [laughter] >>

. . books are temples and would never trust a person who was writing a book but then he throws the book card it goes out the window and lands in the courtyard and it? the spine the law clerk does not know what to do so makes a hasty exit after getting a lecture on how to treat books. [laughter] >> brier and suter arech other mistaken often for each other and not long ago justice souter was driving from here to new hampshire

and stop to give something to eat and a couple came up to him and he said i you're on the supreme court. a gu your stephen briar. co your right? >> he said yes and theyrrass thented then he asked the question suter wasn't ready for so what is the best thing about being on the cou he supreme court? he said it is the privilege of serving with justice at suter.er. [laughter] how canth you not love him?ill a >> mine is as much about the it characters trying to become justices as well as theha justices themselves and my favorite biz is a nominee named carswell who wasnomie namd considered not the high a th

calibere nominee for the supreme court. he was tagged as a mediocre lawyer. in one of the senate handlers tried to help to say to the effect there is a lot of mediocre lawyers and wll judges.her a judgesthey deserve representation to? as [laughter]t wa so that was the end of his h chances to become a justice of the supreme court. >> that is what we were hoping to do is not just thin talk about the not just to talk about some of s prpolitics and the politicos and behind-the-scenes procedures but ave a point

plan about what we should do and we should get liquor and we should have it, what it should be, at the same time he is organizing betting pools and competitions between any manner and the cover of our book. it is not just high-powered political people that fun people that want to have fun. >> and make money off of that. >> yes.

i'm televising in the courtroom. >> i think tony has risen considerably on the topic. >> i have only been in court for about 30 years. with absolutely zero success and i keep thinking you justices will come on and have less fear of comments in the older justices. and it keeps happening. justice kagan, she seemed like the best champion in a long time and she said that she was going to carry this into the court. just a few months ago, she gave a speech where she was asked about it and she said i have

been thinking about a. maybe it won't be the right thing to do. it's almost like the order of the court in new justices and they decide that families are not a good idea. >> justice souter said there would be cameras in the courtroom over his dead body. i agree with tony and i know tony has been the most eloquent supporter and the chances of this happening are slim. but i do think that they will be more receptive to increased audio availability. and they will release the audio at the end of the week and the arguments take place. i would bet in 10 years they will stream it live on the web in terms of audio.

but i think that video is a very different story. i was shocked and disappointed to see elena kagan with the stockholm syndrome that goes on there apparently. [laughter] >> the first question i have is there is a lot of talk in the most conservative of histories. is this the first time that people have accepted that and that it is political in history will it stay that way? >> well, i don't think that i have said come and i don't believe that this is the most local court in history, i think the court is always political.

i think it is a political institution, presidents appoint justices to reflect their political ideology these are really horrible decisions that the supreme court could come up with. so i don't think that this is a more political or more right-wing thing than it's ever been. but i do think that it's political and considerate. >> i also think at the same time

it is the most active court in history. my colleague has a book on this and he has shown that the modern court is the most active in terms of striking down popular enacted laws in any court ever before. in that sense, the court is getting involved in issues that the american people have focused on. the court has said no and this may very well account as to why the public approval ratings have declined. the willingness to get involved and overturn decisions. maybe activist is a better term than politicize. >> putting on my practicing lawyer had, i think that what does get lost sometimes is that not all the decisions are political issues that you read about in the paper. i think much of the court's

work, probably most of it involves issues that people would not consider political bankruptcy issues and the efforts to resolve conflicts in the circuit. we do have to step back and there is so much that goes on and you can put a liberal conservative with this. >> about a third of the cases are unanimous. that is a fair judgment of what is controversial. half are pretty controversial. >> other manifestations of the public realizing the court is part of the institution and maybe the court realizing it as well. i spent time with judicial attendance at the time of woodrow wilson as president.

citizens united case, it amounts to president obama making a statement about the scope of the law. you see over time the court struggling with the public role in the last 10 or 15 years it has increased with justices saying that i don't want to be a potted plant at a political pep rally and etc. the court is very aware of what it does and doesn't want to do. >> are there any thoughts on this? how conservative this court is? >> no, i'm not going to go there, but i would say that it is not as politicized, but whether it reflects the american

people. and i know the answer to that. but i think that is a very interesting question. >> one of the venture could be the activities that the supreme court espouses. kenny thomas and her political activism, or is it just sort of an outlier case, or some of the spouses of justices were stepping out of the shadows and asserting their own views and what is the impact in terms of the justices? >> yes, jenny comes to mind. >> can i just say, i do think that was a bunch of nonsense for staying in the case. there was an effort who knew how

he was going to vote and thomas has been a political activist before she met clarence thomas. this is her job. she has every right to have that job. they are a two career family with a lot of people. something that she had every right to do what she did. clarence thomas had every right and thomas was fortunate that the leader of the effort would take place. >> lately we have had the blockbuster terms that we have been having, and do you think there has been an increase in the public awareness and

attention to the cases and these controversial cases and white to . >> i think that i'm very sensitive to this because i'm trying to sell books and i was very origin at. the term before was the loser term of all time. it was the big case of the violent videogame labeling constitutional. the only appropriate question their is who cares. i mean, some terms are big and sometimes are not. >> [inaudible question] too common, it is true what's

fascinating to me at the moment is just a sotomayor. clearly what is your view of where we will come out en masse? it's such a mystery. >> i just think this idea that justices turn out differently is a myth. that was the eisenhower presidency, which was a long time ago.

you're absolutely right. since then the number of surprises is very small. look at all nine justices on the supreme court. >> she's going to be a solid liberal like the other democratic courts and i think she has taken a particular interest in the criminal docket. i think that the fact that she was a federal district judge in actually dealt with cases in a nonacademic way, it adds a tremendous amount to the court. >> she seems to me to be more of a -- kind of trying to come out

with a correct decency, whereas many of these cases -- it's like what is my position and how i get there and. >> one last question. >> all of you justices,. >> anything close to the microphone. >> okay. >> many of you have had and the political dealings. talking directly. i'm wondering if there was one justice that you'd like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, whether it is due to intrigue or you enjoy their company. >> alive or dead? >> the conversation might not be very good. [laughter]

>> for me it would be homes or franker. >> i will go dd, john >> were you intrigued with this as well? >> it is so hard to choose. i'm going to face similar circumstances >> the answer is anyone but james reynolds. [laughter] okay come on that note, i thank you very much. we have what wanted the appetite of the audience about these

books and thank you very much. [applause] >> and legally if he brings people closer together. for the realization what a human being or an individual can do. i think of those who save the lives while risking

their own. they are a hero. [applause] i remember i was still so involved with this extraordinary group of people had left. before that to organize a group of liberators preteen people from all over the world. i spoke with them and said you are the first to have seen us the first to have seen us inside. bear witness. you will be over witnesses. i remember going from one to another from holt -- poland and hungary and they said what gave you the courage to exist?

what gave you the courage to become a hero? they answered he rose? not at all. one said if my neighbor was in danger how could i not offer myself? if a child is hungry in the street how could i not save him or her and i said to myself, in those times it was enough to become the human and a hero. my good friends, we are dying here. not for a hero but the messenger. president clinton 20 years ago here, in this place outside it was raining.

[laughter] we were soaked. our shoes were in water. president clinton i remember then that i came to speak and i had worked on my speech the entire night literally. the entire night and when i opened my folder if ever i was close to a heart attack, it was then. [laughter] it was soaked. i could not decipher a word. had i tried to remember what i had said it would have been a disaster. so i had to improvise a new one and that is when i turned to you, mr. president, and i spoke to you about yugoslavia, i had just come

back from their. and in the name of memory for those people before becoming victims of one another. and i remember you promised america will do then and kind enough to send me to yugoslavia as your emissary. that moment, mr. president you and i became friends. and as you note to me, a friendship is a religion and that is one of the most noble religions without any danger, the most beautiful one, to have you here now, 20 years later