are they for or against it? just shouted out. [inaudible] do not young men, for or against it? the young men in the age group want to do four things. i don't think any to sell them out. they want to get drunk, get -- play sports and make money. now let's take the men who are 20 to 26. do they think this is a good program? are they for it or against it? [inaudible] say it again. what a focus group you wouldn't be. now, therefore it. this is something that would be better. we are mixing age groups, mixing geography, mixing socioeconomic and educational levels, they

geography. someone from seattle but some of from chicago, from memphis and they are all in this platoon with a couple real sergeant, company grade officers. by the way coming younger boys could really use this. 17-year-old, 8-year-old lot different than tony, 23. charlie flake, you ready? now we'll talk about the girls. which of the young ladies think were 17, 18, 19, 20 about giving the men away? are they for it or against it? let me see hands. how many accounts? i really glad you guys are not the focus group. a matchmaker with onstar knows, touchiness comes stuff hanging in her quote was taken yesterday and make them out of them.

exact quote. that was down and hide park in chicago. he went to the northwestern campus and had college women off the street. i think we talked about this last night a little bit. we asked them the same question. what did the win in 20 plus think about this program? were they for american state? will see the floor a guns? the reality is don't you take any of his horseflesh off the ranch. so what we see as biology talking. but in the goes back to resilience. u.k. has to share question. we still got a couple of minutes. are we having fun? is it okay? is that there's room for a while. go.

>> men are the problem of the society. >> men are the problem of the society. >> will quit, can we repeat the question? >> come to the microphone. >> the question is why not draft the women, to? the men are the problem in the society? everybody knows that, right? the cohort would go from 1.5 million a year to 3 million a year in the portability all of a sudden a suspect. i can make a case for $20 billion, the cost of the program look at a 40 or $50 billion return. but i just don't have the absorption capacity to absorb 3 million their different medical concerns. young women have a hair embassy in needs.

the ama said they would be willing to do sick call pro bono if we give them releases that they need something, they go to the military system. this is kind of a weak argument because women can take as much as they can. will be out in better conditions. when you mix the is, what should be a requirement. we couldn't keep them segregated. what happens is you mix the sexes. so that's the re so that's the reason. if we had to do it unless they came up, it would be so good for the resiliency of the nation to have a program like this. any nations have that, by the way? shot at a nation that has it. south africa. another on israel.

i heard israel. switzerland? any others? norway. now? already. norway, denmark, sweden, italy, germany jested away with it. france doesn't want it bad. the french don't care as long as they pronounce it correctly if you've ever seen that. they've got to show on grammar and pronunciation and a bunch of eastern european countries. the germans argue this is for the civilization. i sainted irish mother i can get away with ethnically. irish? half german, half irish. this is another tributary king. he noted call them classics he

said they are a nation -- we are a nation of carnivorous sheep. [laughter] which means they need to have some kind of military structure for the civilization of the germans. so that gives you some stuff. other questions? i'm going to hang around tonight by the way. the books have advised them before -- it's a marketing ploy. we are cheney and the is now, but it's just a marketing technique. >> first of all, i agree with your concept. a quick question for you. did they allow you to write at all barrio that attacked your mates around the corner? is that we had to do tapping because they wouldn't allow it? >> it was forbidden. in the early years, you would be hurt physically and

psychologically. so you couldn't communicate. they tried to break down her structure as a kind of larger groups and try to maintain the distance between the structures, but we always beat the dealer within the sending we would find ourselves. advancers on other questions. that's the other questions? >> you could talk if you had a roommate. in truth, the isolation. last evening except when they would come through encourages for about four or five years and then we got into larger groups. in fact, some things approximate and more humane treatment. we got a few books and they take them away for something for diversion of time. it never can approximate the conventions. my

in 2002, what adequate the white

house fellows delegation in the book yosi i say we lost the war, but we won the war, too. moving out and he said he muni lal and took my hand in this briefing room, where we went back and forth. we were holding veterans from the site a lot. is the anniversary. when a cart path repack my hand and put a light on the boat. you feel differently about the enemy. and it sounds you find that we won that war, too. how many have been to vietnam? isn't it amazing country? the people are beautiful, kids are more literate in english some suggest that our own kids.

the american culture swept through. it's still a communist country centrally controlled, the ones you get the taste of freedom, it's hard to get it out of the palate. am i about out of time? one more question. anybody who wants to chat about the, we can do that. besides, the bar is going to be open, isn't it? go-ahead. ask your question, please. >> i'd like to say thank you for your time and also creating the circumstances had come in and sharing with us. [applause] >> i am one of many, so i wish the lights were not so gerrish because it should sign on so many. >> at the beginning of tonight,

u.s. has to consider the question, why do we go to war? elicit fear and hate. but she spoke so much of love tonight. i'm wondering, is there a place for love in the 30 a country or people go to war? >> publicly loving the idea or over fixation with the idea. love is such an empowering emotion. it's not all sweetness and life. i have a hard time creating a construct probably because i'm not intellectually sharp enough. you obviously can maybe do that, but i can't figure out why a country with somebody else so much that they want to go kill them because in the end, curt lemay probably summed up the essence of war for as much as anybody. if we as a people wish to prevail over time in the history of not going into some extended

decline, not listed in resources neighbors the pacific and atlantic ocean not true that her and that is when you go to war, the purpose is to kill people. you kill enough and they quit fighting. i can make a case we are neglecting air power. i see no sense in having an 18 what could go to kandahar and kick down doors with a rifle when we can take a squadron of b-52's and make kandahar a bunch of pricks and then send the 18-year-old kid to do it. are we as a people willing, absent the fact is i mention for constitutional declaration to stand for the level of carnage. a further state that if we were, surprise, surprise, the level of damage to the site to be less

than a long extended conflicts and will cost a lot less. we can argue about that. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> you know, i used to plan a nuclear war the country. after all those years i was a general change in that execution responsibilities. what worries me about nuclear weapons is we are approaching, what can the policies are carried out for the use of nuclear force makes sense. it's still classified. as you drive down to certain levels come you make the world safer nuclear war. outthink nuclear war is as horrible and dangerous in the end of the world. it would set a whole portions of

columnists into bare and desolate. it was never in a construct used nuclear weapons. it is a plan in the book in 1966 to use force to such a level round-the-clock, had everything worth having in northfield on to do the lemay and back to the stone age with respect to total infrastructure. their targets for cutting and as late as 1972 that we finally have to hit that caused the peace accords concluded, which resulted in my release and 73 and release of my colleagues. that was the christmas bombing of 1972 where they took him downtown, took them down to hanoi with predictable losses associated. we could have not and we can do that if we have robust air

power. the first thing is air supremacy or air superiority. no american soldier has ever been killed by enemy air since world war ii. we're perilously thin but for structured now and i worry about that. >> you want to take one more question quite >> you guys can cut off the tape and anybody who needs comic about it here. i don't want to disappoint anybody. >> if you want to take questions when they sign them, they be easy for staff. >> she's got that up. >> thank you for taking my question. so you mentioned they could and were faster and more effectively by changing the strategy and superiority with airpower.

>> all go further than that. we can win wars and we have is just airpower. >> what are thoughts of the military-industrial complex influence on postponing wars are prolonging wars? >> i don't know. you could make a case either side. if you do the thing that paranoids thereafter over here with a paranoids thereafter so that they are coming back to eisenhower, ensure this ebb and flow. i'll tell you what i do favor, the national security policy and we have an expert in the room. national security policy or policies we talk about, if we demand that the public policy constructs of our nation be three or four things. it would be understandable. they would be affordable. they would be executable in terms of desired outcomes had a fair shot of happening.

i must say, i run that had significant spending associated with that would have the sunset clause. i think would be money ahead in all domains, not just the military industrial world. if it could be one thing to address your problem or that you pose i think it would be to do away with the fires. the federal acquisition regulation. they are so screwed up that's why you get your dollars toilet seats. you really tell, but to do with it, we have created because the dh of our country, we repeat procedure in process until it is so opaque nobody understands it. i used to order things. i needed a pencil or bottled water, i could go order and make a requisition and sure enough we would get it if bottled water

pencils. i came out one morning and the other two squadrons are facing us. as the 27th in the 71st. the original squadrons of world war i. the other two commanders stand out there scratching our heads because they have three palette worth of had the eight by eight seasoned oak, timbers. and they are looking on it. i walked over, your wood has arrived. the problem was you couldn't turn it back in. and you know this, without having your account at it. so you have to pay for it. if you turn the thing you have to pay for a cab, which is when the supply system is working in this case. so you know it happened to it.

it disappeared. there's a lot of sawdust around, but it disappeared. look, you guys have been great. the idea is to have a little fun. if you want one little piece of humor -- i'll leave you with a serious one and not the scariest thing. after 30 days without scraping drug around, they took me to a place where i could sit against the wall that water trip on me. it was the first time that had water on me. a place with a time of buckets and i laid there and i can still feel the water today. and what's happening is the demon you had to be where i was. there is writing on the beam is a rhetorically asked, what is that? you don't know. it is in red pencil him in a

clash. feeling pretty bad it got to tell you, but i look up their innocent smile, you are on candid camera. [laughter] and i think tonight i hope that i'm a little candid with my remarks in you guys can be equally and more candid as we continue to pursue the evening here. thank you again so very much.br.

this is 15 minutes. -- 50 minutes. >> thank you. we are gathered to discuss robert bork's final book, "saving justice." and i am here because i worked as one of persistence for two and a half years we were friends between 1974 and his death last fall. but i need to open with a confession. i can't say very much about the book. i will talk instead about bob

bork, the man and solicitor general. the reason i can't think much about the book is because its principal focus is his first six months on the job when he wrote the brief said this at the court to stop justice douglas' crusade in the u.s. are prosecuting the vietnam war. when he fired archibald cox as a special prosecutor to replace him and when he served as i can attorney general for three months between the time elliott richardson resigned and william saxby was appointed. not bad for one's first six on-the-job. the title, "saving justice" comes from bob's decision not to resign after the saturday night massacre, which should've been called the saturday night involuntary manslaughter.

[laughter] because nixon didn't plan it, but just wandered into it. bob believes the president has the authority to control everyone in the executive branch and firing subordinate personnel. cox had proclaimed his insubordination on national tv. when the president is wise to exercise that authority is for history to decide. attorney general richardson had promised the senate he would retain a special prosecutor and he thought therefore he had to resign when nixon asked him to fire cox. ..

he saved justice by staying. had he quit in protest, he probably would have been treated as a national hero and been confirmed to the supreme court. perhaps he would have been appointed by president ford in 1976 after john paul stevens. he was on the list that edward lee be sent to president ford as

possibilities. had he quit combination as a whole would've suffered. so he stayed in office. he was so determined not to benefit that he turned down an opportunity to be appointed as an attorney general and you turn on the chance to work from the attorney general's more elegant office. everything that he says in his books, he set in 1974 as well.

it is entirely consistent with the man that i knew for 40 years. intellectual, considerate of consequences before acting, and absolutely honest. he is also the funniest men i've ever met. merits briefs, oral arguments, and the solicitor general also decides when the government will appeal an adverse decision by a district court with the court of appeals. they have authority to participate in the supreme court. it is a broad portfolio and requires a large base of

knowledge plus the ability to learn fast. the solicitor general does not start the process within the justice department. to make recommendations, which go to the assistance, sometimes there is an internal conflict. the department of justice includes the criminal division and those people always want to defend wardens and guards. somebody has to resolve those sites. or an assistant to the solicitor general me think that this statutory prosecutions weak the solicitor general has resolve those issues personally but also

to hear presentations by private counsel. it is one of the officers traditions. as he said in the book, he tried to advance their positions to the executive branch, not his own views. members i never come i never saw him misunderstood his intellectual integrity. we have been behind three of these cases, but first i want to mention the last of the closer general's task, oral arguments. bob bork was the best oral advocate is generation.

his successors have tended to argue between five and 10 cases a year. he loved the give-and-take and was great on his feet. the justices are apt to say something like, well, you didn't make this argument earlier, to do. why don't you just move along. it takes gravitas to get the justices to listen. the first i saw him in action, he had to paper over a very bad argument. congress had taken over the bankrupt eastern railroad, merging them to form common rail

and amtrak. the railroad sued, contending that the laws and unconstitutional undertaking they had settled so often in the operation of railroads that the railroads just had no rights at all that they were entitled to rely on and claim the right to please any time want with their property. the justices were not about by that the solicitor general to

these oral argument in in scope mean position in the very. he was chewing on his feet and advanced to a different position than he had been given time to argue. he was there to defend the government's original argument that congress had for so long, that it required an easement across the board. representative adams tried to free himself by telling the justices that the house and

senate what a blunder. it applies must repeal. adams had just told the supreme court. it was a do unanimous way for bob bork's reason. the credit card carried a rate of interest that was legal in the state where the bank at its headquarters with you it was

taking on risk your customers, customers who are most likely to repay. everybody could gain, customers would good credit will go to low interest banks. everyone would have some business. and everyone would be better off. almost as if there were an

invisible hand. and he produced this line. and i quote that marquette, the rival, needed an advertising agency. instead, it hired a lawyer. after that, bob had the justices eating out of his hand. it didn't take the court long for the unanimous opinion in his favor. i have never seen a case turnaround so neatly by an appellate advocate. let me come to the three case studies about solicitor general bork's role. the first of these is one of the supreme court never decided. the boston school segregation dispute he first came to the nixon administration's attention after writing an article concerning the courts had

overused school segregation cases. the book contains a description about a meeting of the white house for the discussion of a sprinkler decision in press nixon. that led to the effort. chief justice had issued a careless opinion the money the principles followed by another inflammatory approval. bob wanted to set them straight. people who thought that the constitution limits government

use of race, accepts as a remedy for racial violation. there was no violation racial imbalance in the schools was itself a constitutional wrong and that the appropriate remedy was there with everywhere in each class had black and white student same ratio. but the real issue was the goal and not the means. many groups asked the solicitor general to support the school board until the supreme court to grant this in reverse not to

undo the consequences of private choice. bob held the customary meetings. the attorney general took an interest. here is the problem. the school board had engaged in contempt of court by defining some aspects of the injunction. many residents have lost being engaged in violence. what should the united states do? it was a serious intellectual problem. with bob bork asking them to indicate his legal position, you might as well in a way that would appear to give support to defiance and violence. the pragmatic reading was held in eternal -- attorney general

levy's office. they were ready to go the attorney general began recalling his lifelong support of the civil rights movement. he also founded the brief was legally correct. the assistant attorney general for civil rights argued strenuously. they talk about what legal standard is contained and it was profoundly misguided and would damage the cause of civil rights. there was no need to file the brief. he did not understand that one of these points could only view

be right, although all three could have been wrong. my recommendation is not to file. i had written a brief, and i agreed with myself. i thought that no comfort should be given. solicitor general bork also recommended not filing. that cost him a lot. he knew this was his last chance to be care deeply about. but he thought that defines two judicial orders was more important. the attorney general agreed with the solicitor general. the briefs were sent to the shredder, this one, in my hands, maybe the only copy. though perhaps bob bork and edward leavy retained copies for their files as well. i am sure that earlier drafts have been photocopied by the civil rights division for the benefit of the press and plaintiff lawyers in that group

of lawyers need it watertight. the supreme court adopted the standard of the boston three. history tells us that pottinger was wrong on all three points. the bob did not play a part in that. he deserves great credit. if you read his brief, you'll notice -- excuse me come if you read his book, you'll notice that the book does not mention the boston case. to use the book to get the last word on the subject that was kept out of the supreme court at the time, and that emphasizes integrity. my second vignette concerns the challenge to the election campaign act, brought to the supreme court by james buckley with the assistance ralph winter, a friend from yale law

school. it sent contribution and expenditure limits for office and it also made the federal elections commission independent of the president. shifting away from the president and challenges. the solicitor general assembled his s.w.a.t. team or politically sensitive cases. they ran off any, we went to work on a brief that should stand as one of history's curiosities. the brief filed, and i quote, for the attorney general and for the united states. goes to great length to it talk about violating the first amendment and how much "the new

york times" could charge for a paper or pay its reporters, and why, therefore, there were serious problems with the contribution and expenditure limits in the statute. next time somebody tells you that an expenditure limit is just about money, and money is not speech, you should reply that "the new york times" again sullivan was just a case about money for tort damages that naacp had a case about economic injury to businesses and that the alien and sedition acts were just lies about imprisonment. no privately that "the new york times" is a corporation, and therefore, according to its own editorial policy, they were on the wrong side again sullivan and has no rights under the first amendment. it also exists in corporations. but the brief did not say the final line and elected to the

justices to draw their own conclusions, that is always a very risky step. why this failure to go the limit on a subject about which bob bork had such strong views. well, the list of signatures on the brief tells the story. the brief i discussed was signed by attorney general leavy, deputy solicitor general ran off and a guy without a title. me. on the same day, leavy, bork, and general freedom and then another guy without a title defended the statute's constitutionality.

it is a curious caveat. if you think that buckley is of odd opinion, sustaining some sections that are indistinguishable and held invalid, saying that the law is okay because it is so narrow. it had an odd genesis as well. it seemed to preclude straight talk framers of the constitution knew that political speech and activity needed protection from legislation and legislators. when members of the executive and i am sad to say, judges, come to it, they are inflicted by justice that disables analysis. if you want to see a real discussion of analysis, and take a look at the brief that the solicitor general bork assigned. this one about the events leading to the immigration and

naturalization service, the one house veto case, which didn't reach the supreme court until after bob and i had left the government, but which he participated in setting up, the department of justice, attorney general leavy, solicitor general bork and justice scalia concluded with all of the predecessors in the 20th century. edward leavy set out to obtain a judicial decision. the solicitor general's office was involved from the start. but anyway, no one would have dreamed taking a position

without consulting robert bork and he always thought of his staff. you may remember these statutes. they read something like sometimes two houses of congress, sometimes one committee, it disapproves within several days. it includes a senate and house of representatives. and then there are two components in article one, section seven, clauses two and three. one says every bill which shall have passed the house and senate will be presented to the senate and the other cause says the vote shall be presented in a

particular way. to sum this up, and i will won't be because without you, congress asks by agreements of the houses, the legislative veto statute refers to the proposition by allowing the president or his agencies to adopt some law. those bits of elderly texts are the real constitution. they created something of a problem and bob bork had lunch with his assistant, almost every day. the department of justice was trying to set up a case that reached the supreme court. the conversations went like this, and i will reprise my own

role. the constitution requires the concurrence of two houses of congress and the president if the present proposals a rule or even a chairman committee doesn't go along and concurrence is lacking. why doesn't this consensus beta test of the constitution, even if not the exact form, given the origination. that is not what the constitution says. the administrative state is not only constitutionally questionable, but stifles free enterprise and rains in the agencies. should we welcome this development which promotes constitutional values by enlarging the role.

the only way is the right vague statutes and it makes a general delegation possible. this conversation occurred on the supreme court as well. the by taking bork's part. if this assures us that things will work better this time than it did for special prosecutors in the past it would create an

unacceptable conflict of interest. prosecutors usually are disinterested. it preserves the role of the president even if the president and senate have been excluded in the appointment process that is not what the constitution says. well, it wasn't our troubled history with special prosecutors. they changed my mind to the justice scalia perspective. it was a recognition that the

constitution is formed but it includes about the structure that we had. that is part of today's view. leavy, bork and justice scalia can be credited with changing our jurisprudence. i cannot close out without one final vignette without one post-solicitor general yours. your member he was mocked for saying during his 1987 hearings that he wanted to be on the supreme court because it would be an intellectual feast.

[inaudible] i would like to leave a reputation as a judge that understood constitutional government and contributed his bed to maintaining it in ways that i have described this committee. our constitutional structure is a must for any legislation passed, and i would like to maintain it and be remembered for it. then it wraps up at the end of nixon's presidency. without a soldier in the streets, we managed to transfer power that would shatter many nations. yet without the intellectual feast of law, i'm not sure i would've had the ability to make the correct decision that october night. whether in a role as a judge or advocate, my two answers are flip sides of the same coin.

life in the long without a sense of this and without this, it slips into idolatry. without duty, inquiry descends into naval gazing. he does so, he did the country proud and we will miss him. [applause] >> i'm happy to take any questions at this talk brings up that anyone else brings up about this. the solicitor general bork, professor bork, even advocate since he was prior to the legal academy.

>> is hold on a second there. >> i'm wondering if you could comment on the proposition that we already missed him by the fact that he -- what might have happened had he been on the supreme court. >> well, it is easily quite impossible to speculate about what might have happened had he been on the supreme court. what precisely are the differences and those of justice kennedy as i said in the talk, he was a man of great intellect and great integrity. he would have done well as a justice. the justices tend to surprise people who appointed them. if you look at judge bork's

decisions during the four years on the dc circuit that he was there with justice scalia, there were many cases where they were on opposite sides of the same issues. how one works out particular details is actually very difficult to predict all nine justices took original positions and not case. but they were divided by to four. he had the ability and the right framework about how to go about doing it.

>> the constitution versus today's society that was not contemplated by the authors. can you share with us about the society? >> well, the problem with the word activist is that people use it -- they attempted to judges behaving badly. i'm going to fill in what badly as. so the left accuses the right in the right accuses the left and it is a term with no meaning other than the idiosyncratic meaning of the speaker which would therefore be abolished. what you really want to discuss is not who is active in his non-is that the alternative activism or pessimism. presumably pacifism is judges who don't care what is in the

constitutional statute and the people rule over them. the only thing that needs to be discussed is whether the judge is right or wrong or whether they have a defensible philosophy of judging. the originalist approach is really founded by john marshall and his what is the basis of this and it supposes that the reason why judges have power to override the views of the legislature of the presidency is that the constitution is a lot like any other. but there is a hierarchy in a conflict of law principles and constitutional law will be federal law and treaties will be federal law and real hierarchy created by the constitution.

judges have the authority to articulate it. when there is not a rule of law to be found in the constitution, one of the great clashes in modern jurisprudence is the people who really believe in the rationale, that the constitution is definitive law and the people who think well, now that we have this review, we can make things up as we go along. which i think is fundamentally wrong. when we have to make things up as we go along. there is very little that is decided in the constitution. most what happens in life, the living have to make up as we go along.

this is the fight has nothing to do with activism. >> we just had a cia director sworn in and that created a difference between the 1789 constitution in 1791 constitution after finishes homework. and i wonder if the topic, versus the 1791 version ever arose in your conversations with him and what that was observed to be.

>> that was the date of the last amendment of the last constitution, which was, by the way, the final ratification in 19921 of the 12 amendments that the house had proposed in 1790. it completely override the states and it combines them at once. sixteenth amendment, which changed how the senators are elected, used to be elected by state representatives and now elected by the people. that fundamentally changes the structure because congress no longer contained within a formal representatives of the states as entities. of course ,-com,-com ma the civil war amendments, if anything changes the structure

of government, it was the civil war and the post-civil war amendments. well, one of the things at first kept coming up in this office was what is the meaning of section two of the 13th amendment these clauses by appropriate legislation. many expand national power especially one of those enforcement clauses. the most common in section five of the 14th amendment. i mentioned in my talk that the professor, the first time he was at a meeting -- nixon commented

that he never thought to here from any professor of law, the case was of morgan. with morgan the supreme court had said that with section five of the 14th amendment means is it is a ratchet, and congress never contract rights. where is that language and 14th amendment? well, and second, what it meant with them is that congress could decide what is necessary with the 14th amendment he was

completely right that there is no ratchet and not language. this is relative to the supreme court. your thinking is to enforce this. which was said to be constitutional and congress had then tried to get rid of it by

legislation. bork felt it was wrong. i thought then and now that i think it was right. because section five gives congress the power to do something by appropriate legislation and the power to do something, the power to interpret the underlying documents. if you go back to the rationale, we are not supposed to have a judge centric view. we go and see what is unambiguously decided and that is binding. everything else has to be decided by the political branches. i think the civil war amendments are in that mold, they are not pro-judiciary statutes. remember, the judiciary at the time of those would produce

this, this is not a set of constitutional amendments. it was a set of constitutional amendments to empower congress at at the expense of the judiciary and states and the local branches that congress and the president when you have extra powers. as i say, we talked about that all the time. i thought then and i still think that bork was right about the ratchet and wrong about the relative roles of congress and the judiciary in dealing with section five legislation. it does not diminish my admiration. he thought that i was wrong as well. i'm curious if you can shed light, both as a human being and what his philosophy was.

>> when he was nominated, i was already a judge. the managers in this process, a close friend and later to be a judge of the dc circuit and steve gillis, one of his former law clerks, they helped shepherd him through this process. but my review of the process was not very well either. i think that they and he made a terrible strategic mistake. to strategic mistakes. first, they made a strategic mistake in believing that these hearings had any intellectual content.

so in the senators asking questions, they were taken seriously. but they were not. they have no intellectual content. they were political theater in the correct way to proceed was as political theater. this is something that the hearings taught offense. the second error that he committed is related to the first great since he took this as an intellectual exchange, as if the senators really were interested in this, he responded with the utmost gravity and not with levity. as i have said, the only person that came close was marty -- justice ginsburg's husband.

and only to deceive the members of congress could have followed up. at the answer is that they could not because of a reading from scripts. if you want an example of that, i will just tell an example about the confirmation hearing that i went through and my colleague went through. not nearly as publicly visible. and he said later that if he had never done anything in his life, he would be a failure. well, when he was nominated, he discovered this. when i was nominated, one of the questions i was asked, do you

think the constitution says what he means and means what it says? having been told that this question was coming, i said yes. and we went on to the next question and in his script, he asked the same question as the professor that even once. and then he began to catalog some of the interpretive disputes, about how language changes meaning over the century and although i wasn't there, i am told about it. and at the end, there is no

follow-up question. nobody could believe. the hearing was in 1981, nobody told him that this was political theater and you are not expected to have the answers like that. well, since the judge like judge bork had thought about exchanges and views, he had gone there just by himself. and you want to go with friends and family but his wife charlene was not there the professor had published an article saying that the world would be better off if there were more options. and now someone would say a

notice that neither of your children are here. when did you seldom? [laughter] we learn how to manage confirmation. >> and thank you all for being