inspired by their religion spea out. invoking god. a huge cry out which includes women. not considerably on the cover, but actually inside. you can see that, which is important, even though they could not vote, they can raise hope. it is abandoned in 1832 when it seems as if the whole edifice i going to crumble because the

kingdom could give way, so is i -- it is a dramatic moment. >> given the size today of london and the power of london, did the other cities have nearl as much political power as they did at one. >> well, i think they have thei own power, but i agree, london is such a spirit. i mean, the constant efforts to spread out from london, manchester, speedboats, all tha kind of thing. our cities are pretty, influential. i agree, four very small island london is a very big capital. >> was this a religious question , or did the catholic church and anglican church involved and the "perilous question"? >> that's a good question. catholic emancipation was part of 1829, and it was rejected with few exceptions. this is not their finest hour.

the catholic church or much mor in favor of reform because, of course, it was a form that was giving breaks to catholics. all things to bear in mind. it was it a radical time. >> lady antonia fraser, her mos recent book, "perilous question reform or revoluton? britain on the bring, 1832". you are watching book tv on c-span2. >> for more information on thes and other interviews from londo visit booktv.org and watch book tv every sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern over the next several weeks for more. you're watching book tv on c-span2. here is our prime-time lineup for tonight.

>> next on it c-span2 book tv tell us supreme court to justic sotomayor presents the pen worl

voices festival arthur miller freedom to write lecture at cooper union, new york city. it's about an hour. [applause] >> i am the executive director of pen and am thrilled to welcome you here on behalf of the pen american center, the largest of more than 140 worldwide that protect those wh risk their lives and liberty to defend free speech, a fight tha has only intensified the digita age. thank you for coming to the eighth annual arthur miller freedom to write lecture, honoring one of the most distinguished years. in her memoir she tells the story of how at seven months that she once stuck her said l. -- her head inside of a bucket. her family was convinced she wa looking for ways to amplify the sound of her voice. so even before she knew how to speak, sonia sotomayor wanted t be heard. she does not need a bucket

anymore. [applause] today in the room where abraham lincoln gave a speech that launched his national political career, we are all here to listen, and those of you who ar not blocked by the columns in this historical room will get t see also, and if you are please feel free to move around so tha you get the best sideline for the justice. just as justice sotomayor has blazed trails in her career, he lecture charts close a festival that has brought more than 100 riders from all over the world to new york. the presence of justice sotomayor breaks ground. she earned her renowned not as writer, but as a judge should. she grew up not in a faraway content, but the other brown as the bronx. raised in a spanish-speaking family, justice sotomayor her u

long and for parents home in puerto rico, but arrived at princeton and felt like she was landing in an alien country. yet, her life and her voice but distinctly american. illustrious give of how not jus our words and language, but american perspectives, believes and values show route in every part of the world. the world of voices festival aims to widen so that they continue to enrich and enliven our cacophony here at home. meanwhile, beloved world, her extraordinary memoir, has earne sonia sotomayor recognition, no just as a writer of the important opinion, but as an important writer. we hope someday she will consider becoming a professiona member of pen. she reminds us that the univers of riders must always be porous open to the power of opposed regardless of the ride his day job cuts underscore the point,

just just today we held in a va on writing by new york city cab drivers. i think some of them are from the bronx, too. in her book she describes hello voice reflected by an immigrant upbringing became part of the most powerful 9-person course i this country. the heavy black robes of the supreme court justice have not stopped her from finding ways t let her culture and background show through. she expresses not just her opinion, but herself. and in so doing she manifest th free expression that is not onl illegal right but a foundation of human identity and possibility. for justice sotomayor free expression is not nearly a matter of first amendment jurisprudence from the bench, she has demanded a come exercis it, and defended it her all life . she did at princeton once you read about the failure to embrace a chicano culture and her father complained to the

department of health education and welfare. heard tough questions were the reason voting rights and gay marriage case's lead attorneys time tied and lead in the news and does so in writing, of whic is more candid and feeling and personal than that of any other supreme court justice. she has confounded expectations in the tradition of the man who came to the salt content yuri 2 to 1860. a crowd expected contemporary, something weird and uncultivated . as abraham lincoln delivered th speech with the line that ended it, his call to action to end slavery, let us have faith that light makes my. it began to applaud. a lincoln biographer roche, onl at the great hall, cooper union can audiences so equally hale lincoln's presence, their to

imagine not that diane, with th living man, not the bearded iconic myth, but the case shaven , fresh voice political original of concord all fear on the way to the white house and to the immortality. a fresh voice of political a result, a proud new yorker who conquered all of new york on th way to the supreme court had a place in history. ladies and gentlemen, justice sotomayor. [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> i feel so humbled to be in this great hall at a podium at which one of my favorite residents stood, president lincoln, but among such distinguished writers, if you must believe me as i say it -- don't know -- thank you for letting me be a part of tonight. when i receive the invitation t speak tonight i reflected on th work that pen does in support o freedom of expression, whether advocating for writers are persecuted because of their wor or simply raising awareness of abuses of human rights, calling us all to accounts because ignoring such events makes us all less worthy of our own humility, and i asked myself,

what can i possibly say today that won't be preaching to the choir. the director of the pen world voice festival thoughtfully suggested a list of questions about my work on the court that might be a particular interest to the pen members. many are questions that prefer not to answer, and i hope my presentation today will explain my. the reason is sound up in my reflections of other questions he posed. have i had any personal experiences with or self-censorship? then more broadly, how does the notion of freedom change depending on circumstances? has my understanding of freedom changed since my appointment to the supreme court. i must preface my remarks today

by saying that my own experiences of since my employment to the court is not large ship, and it would be in city is for me to compare it to the repression experienced by the writers that pan supports are some judges have endured. judges have been threatened wit public of removal, economically persecuted to ensure their decisions conform to the well o public opinion and even jailed. in some jurisdictions judges ar banished to a virtual siberia t neutralize their voices come in many countries judges are killed . we're fortunate that article three of the u.s. constitution guarantees federal judges their positions for life of two impeachment for a high crime an misdemeanor, and that no diminution of our salaries can occur during our tenure.

these guarantees largely -- these guarantees largely guard against much of the overt that judges experience. despite its rarity, the threat alone of impeachment or removal in response to a judge's decision causes untold anxiety and is often viewed as an assault on judicial independence . it is why so many lawyers and citizens in our country work to guard independence against over or even covert threats of or impeded -- impeachment for an unpopular decision. you can easily find instruction on the internet for how semplic judge, but accomplishing it is, thankfully, a very different matter. i do not claim a special braver

in my work on the court, but knowing that freedom is both precious and rifle and being to easily appropriated by those wh would granted exclusively with their own politics are treated as a commodity for export or impose it by military force, we do well to study it closely, to learn how it's facets' show under different lights, allied one moment freedom may be in distinguishable from responsibility and add another recognizes that it shares features. let me give you some examples. since its publication in january , the response to my memoir has been one of genuine surprise. readers and critics have described it as amazingly candid , revealing, and disarming

a personal. i can assure you that what i have written is not what is normally understood as confessional or tell-all. i know i will disappoint some. it is the rating that seems an unusually frank to most of my readers. i believe their responses because of the expectations tha surround my role as a justice. the image of the supreme court justice is that of the most inscrutable of all public servants, and rode in tradition of extraordinary professional privilege and privacy. our lifetime appointments shielding gas from political fortune as we can further behin doors that are closed, even to our own clerks and administrative staff. oral arguments offered just a sliver of the stability into ou

process as we work toward a decision, and that small openin becomes the occasion, the dramatic prognostication in the press as bund and examine the entrails of every thing for som hint of how we will decide. a curious aspect is that our decisions and the logic that leads us to them will come in due course, the manifest car regardless of how the air time or column inches have been filled meanwhile. as part castors breathless accounts does not guide a ball through the air, and neither does the proper commentary that follows all arguments. it is inadmissible, neither evidence nor argument by the parties. the more interesting commentary which i see so rarely in the

press would appear after we render our decision. i would avoid the rhetorical strategy this or who might have been having a bad day. it would offer instead and analysis about questions and what impact their responses had on the shape of our final opinions. a judge's decision may be the question pro been all arguments but the foundations of late avoid that in our studies of that legal precedents, nor do w reach conclusions until we have a chance to consider what our colleagues have to say in conference. our written opinions integrate all of that process. the tendency instead to read it newsworthy, into every word of all argument distorts the publi understanding of our work and i what leads even those of us to

value transparency over tradition to think carefully about whether bringing cameras into the court room. opinion -- opinions may indeed changed. they may change even in the process of writing. i am sure the writer's among yo will recognize how i concept into a fixed form of expression can reveal unforeseen subtleties . it is not unknown for a majorit opinion to be recast. this course of deliberation is shielded from the public you fo good reason. first taught to avoid any premature of crack at the perceived direction of a justic thinking that may end tend to sway that thinking, but ultimately, because of a fundamental belief that a fairl recent decision is the best way of promoting people's trust,

faith in our process. the legitimacy of the court rests in the logical force of the opinions we're right, how thoughtfully and persuasively that we kraft our words. as my colleague has risen, the justices do not simply an ounce legal conclusion. they reason their weight to tha inclusion. in an opinion written for all t see, the obligation to provide legally defensible reasoning in a publicly accessible format presents a judged from escaping accountability. indeed come a good judicial opinion is transparent and informative. it shows that the decision is principled and reasonable. the strength of this reasoning matters. this secrecy and discretion tha surrounds the court in its deliberations are carefully considered.

they're not only way in the balance against the undeniable values of transparency in government, but they also nurture that transparency. the veil of privacy that shelters us from political influence and protect the publi perception of the court is necessary because history shows that our authority is not unassailable. the u.s. supreme court is an instrument of democratic process . it relies on the people's faith in our integrity, our impartiality, and our commitmen to the constitution. maintaining the courts decorum and its respect in the public eye are not minor questions of public relations but is essential to the proper functioning of the institution and our democracy. in this same vein, when i get a speech or express myself

publicly outside of court opinions, i voluntarily and scrupulously censure myself. i am cautious to avoid any topi that might force the league com before the court or to express myself in any way that would telegraph a future decision because it is clear that such expression can and does undermine the public confidence in the court. of course i have my opinions, believes, preferences, and the russians. miami thinking, feeling human being, but part of the justices job description is to bracket those opinions and preferences and emotions so that they do no control our decisions. it is not our silence. it is not that our silence proves the absence of prejudice but if we don't even have the

self flores and self control to refrain from the appearance of impropriety to set aside our personal leanings and focus on the question of law before us? so, no, i am not going to answe some of the questions today about the long-term implication of amnesty or hal pen might hol the government accountable for torturing human rights violations or what types of cases i might answer on the growth of digital media. i encourage you as citizens to think hard about such questions for yourselves. anchorage u.s. writers and intellectuals to bring those questions in to the public discourse. i encourage you to engage with such questions actively in the democratic process, but i,

myself, have been assigned to a different task in the process. i have been asked in my role as a justice to frame my answers o a new round, without pre conceiving judgments before the parties have a chance to decide for themselves what cases shoul be brought and to build a recor of those issues and present their arguments. before i myself have had a chance to deliberate with my other eight colleagues, before each of us has thoroughly reviewed at the record before the court and all the laws and precedents the core rely upon. so, beyond the self-censorship that i exercise in public statements on legal topics, another important form of self-imposed is that which call on the moral sensitivity and simple courtesy to keep

instincts in check. you are aware, i am sure that much hate speech is legally permissible but if it does not meet the criteria of fighting words or in setting a lawless action. citizens can be insensitive, rude, and even deliberately cruel in a speech without actually breaking the law. we have all had experiences wit that. this cruelty covers the muddy ground of what has come to be known sometimes as politically incorrect speech, and the irony that has come to attain to the term politically incorrect, perhaps our times could benefit from a little less irony in a little more sincerity. i have written about a lesson learned from a very dear friend and mentor who taught me much about legal ethics, and i quote

myself. in the practice of law there ar rules that establish a minimum standard of acceptable conduct, what the law permits. that is the flaw below which on cannot stoop. there are other rules, not formally and coated with set th higher bar that define what is ethical behavior, consistent with respect to the dignity of others and fairness in one's feelings and dealings with them. compassion, and now i go back t my talk, compassion and humane considerations do not debase or undermine the law, but dropped to a higher personal standard than those in forced legally. in short, sensitivity in how i speak is just as important to m as one eye say.

the issues i am raising about this situation own nature of freedom of expression, includin the freedom not to express the value of times of restraint or not transparency are closely related to concerns around the third issue, privacy. today the potential of new technologies and data mining to overset the bounds of privacy i a frequent topic of the public fix course and is come before the court. in the united states verses jones where we considered whether extended gps monitoring constituted unwarranted search, i wrote in a concurring opinion awareness that the government may be watching and the

government's unrestrained power to assemble data that reveals private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. who government in its unfettere discretion chooses to track and it for long amounts of time may alter the relationship between citizens and governments in a way that is inevitable to democratic society. i, for one, doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every website they had visited in the last week or month or year. but whenever the societal expectations, they cannot obtai constitutionally protected status. only through fourth amendment jurisprudence seeking to lead st. secrecy as a prerequisite for a travesty -- privacy.

the recent events in boston wil undoubtedly add to that discussion, but let me offer a simple example of the distinction between secrecy in privacy. i recently spoke at a very public event where i shared the stage and how the conversation in front of an audience to ensure that we felt that we wer in an intimate conversation, th press was not invited. it seems pointless debate to exclude the press from any even when any member of the audience can tweet quotations -- i'm sur some of your now, the moment that the words are uttered or blogger their reactions later the same evening, but the exclusion of the press and ofte be solely in attempts to -- an

attempt to establish certain parameters. so we intend to talk like girlfriends playing a certain role for the benefit of the audience present in the hall to listen in. this may involve an element of theatrical illusion, but that i neither secrecy. any social interaction or any verbal expression his selective in what it represents. this is simply a matter of sensitivity to tone, concept, and style. the wealth of affirmation that was shared as social being, the rules i abide by, the small stock to a small smile after a statement. and talk of relationships and breakups and the allure of marlon brando, i am skilled enough to do it without impropriety or tipping my hand

on any issue before the court here. but the presence of press, especially televised press can change the dynamic, raising the stakes and the racing the subtleties. i would my if i -- i would find myself censuring more heavily i dampening the mood, whether consciously or unconsciously. a couple of years back i went t my high-school to meet with its students. after words a number of them sent me a thank-you letter individually. and one of the and people said, i have wanted to hear you speak. at the you were just one of those other politicians who would plow lawn and say meaningless things to me, but the minute i saw that you entered the room without trailing cameras i realized tha you might be a different kind o politician.

and after airing you speak i am glad that i went to my nine gla to know you're not a politician. [laughter] i have learned in speaking publicly, as in my riding, to b conscious of words that have political baggage, learned through hard experience to avoi a provocative turn a phrase or rhetorical flourish that might easily be taken out of context and become a sound bite that refuses to fade away. all of you know what i'm talkin about. judges, too, must sometimes kil their darlings. sometimes self-censorship is simply did kraft and sensitivit to the purpose of one's words. if what i want the word to mean is not what others shoes to understand by it, then i would

do well to rephrase my argument rather than claiming like count dump the tallis to be master of the world. so given the traditional and very practical reticence of members of my court, given my concern for privacy as the spearhead of individual freedom guy given the value i place on restraints, whether it is motivated by compassion or by common-sense, why then did i choose to write a memoir that has broken all precedents for personal revelations from the supreme court justices? why run the risk that others might minds of the circumstance of my life story to extract hands on my little thinking? some critics have commented tha i do, in fact, elite in my memoirs to issues that may come

before the court. it is impossible to live in thi society and not in some way be affected by a court decision. it is impossible for a minority students, like me, to get a college education in the 1970's. i did without somehow feeling the impact, for better or for worse and am a product of affirmative action, just as it is impossible for a homosexual to come public today and not be affected by the proposition eight case in some way. memoirs, no matter what we do. just so you're all clear to my not the dictator here. memoirs will no doubt be writte in the feature that remember to dozen the team as a turning point for those whose lives wil be changed and the for better o worse here. when you live through a particular moment of this nation's history, you cannot be

automatically disqualified from hearing a case that touches our life experience. otherwise there would never be enough judges to decide any cases. which brings me back to my reason for writing an exceptionally candid memoir. because at this moment in the ark of our nation's history and where my own path as an individual happens to intersect with that, i am offering myself as a role model, and that could be the most valuable service that i can perform. no less valuable than my jurisprudence. my goal in writing a story of m own journey from my child shattered by juvenile diabetes, parental or alcoholism and a home where english was not spoken, where the horizon about

virginity was nearly constrained , all i can do is offer help. i wanted to and spiraea and people, minorities, those who have struggled with chronic illness, women, and anyone who has felt themselves marginalize by difficult circumstances, to know that someone like them can indeed, stand in the public space and claim a voice in determining how this country imagine is a self. i wanted to express my gratitud to the mentors who have taught me each step of my journey by using the pages of my butt to mentor others on a larger scale. i knew that i could not achieve such ambitious goals in a memoi without telling a good story, without my words capturing at least some corner of my readers hearts and that, in turn, could

not be accomplished without som varying thoughts of my own. the honesty and openness that that task required would make m vulnerable to personal criticisms, new, seemed the price was worth paying. my story was to serve a meaningful purpose, people woul have to identify with it. the nobility cuts both ways. if you want to reach and connec with other people, you need to open yourself to connection. in my book, i talked about have a functioning kidney and a humane social order depend on our being a will to imagine ourselves in some analysis use. i wrote about the experience that helps me to understand tha treats from my young age, but teachers to disparage latchkey kids with working moms because they did not imagine that a

mother's desire to give her kid a catholic school education might be her motivation to go t work, but the policeman who accepted shopping bags of free food as from the street vendor because that officer did not imagine what a huge cut of a poor man's profit he was taking. to erode about where i grew up, the streets of the south bronx that fell like a war zone being 15 years old when i and instead how is that things breakdown. people cannot imagine someone else's point of view. at the same time i was writing those words with the help that young person reading that today might conceivably imagine yourself in the shoes of a supreme court justice.

it cuts both ways. many readers have labeled this understanding and sympathy or a a constructive and fitful interpretation of what that wor would mean. it is not a word that i use myself in the book. in the media storm that surrounded my confirmation hearing, that word was twisted to imply a favoring of emotion that the expense of the rationa dictates of law. and that's going to argue terms or play how to dump the, but i do know what it means, what makes a good story. is the same thing that makes human connection and community, being able to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes. it is also one of the skills that makes you a good judge. you need to imagine yourself in this use of both parties that stand before you. you need to be sensitive to how your words are perceived on all

sides, and you will value restraint and even self-censorship to ensure that your story its use its intended purpose. these then are my reflections o the questions. yes, i do practice self-censorship because it is often situational. yes, my notion of freedom has changed since i became the justice of the supreme court. being, for the first time, and court of final resort, i am com to appreciate in an unanticipated way, the great burden that my work composes. when my court decides in issue, one party wins the case, but another loses, and many others will be constrains -- constrained in their behavior b our decision. the freedom that i hold as a justice of the supreme court is extraordinary, and i cannot for

a moment liz said of the fact that the freedom is to find bot as choice and responsibility. the responsibility to speak and act, pardon the pun, judiciously . and if i dare say it, wisely. [applause] [applause]

>> was in that fantastic, ladie and gentleman? given up for justice sotomayor. [applause] >> you know, if people read my book they will learn that my mother told me never to lock a book. that is the sacred it was in ou household. i loved -- [laughter] >> you can see that i am still pulling her advice or instructions. >> you are a good doddered. >> i enjoyed your talk very much . you placed several interesting themes, secrecy, privacy, transparency, the power of reticence verses read revelation , the connection between the storyteller's art and that there is kraft. i found all this quite fascinating, so let's start wit this question, your honor. for the epigraph of your book

you use the following lines fro the 19th century poem. forgive the exile. street frenzy. a return to my beloved world, and love with the land or was born. you also include a four page a plus ca have spanish terms the you use in your book along with the endless translations. in many cases the title of your book, it's about an exile's bittersweet return to his nativ land, yet you are not born in pr . why did you choose this lovely palm to situates yourself in a tradition now well, in turn, th phineus some might do this lovely memoir and i'm thinking especially of the lines you "on page 23, to know what you need to see it in in dreams from afa

to learn how to love it you nee to leave it. >> i will start by telling you little something, and then i'll answer you further. >> okay. >> among the people who reviewe my book before it was published there was a grand debate on whether i should provide a spanish english glossary. among the international writers who were part of my group reviewing the book. they called americans lazy. unwilling to rebut that contained foreign languages without someone doing the work for them and creating glossary. those two were not part of the international world. guess who won out? because i did include the glossary, but i included it

because i had a very dear friends who were upset because they're reading was interrupted by having to figure out words. >> this strange, for and son. >> exactly. [laughter] >> that, in turn, partly response to your answer. because it really wasn't my attempts to define myself as returning to pr. why add to kaj the palm or the title. my beloved world, my entire world. my work, my world and environments that i describe. law school is also a line i use

to my but when i talked about being comfortable and that made it a feeling completely a part of either. you cannot come from all world like the one i grew up in, sout bronx, and into the world that got catapulted into as a colleg students, branson, live the lif i have lived since then, now on a world stage, without feeling frenzy of legs out constantly and meeting regularly to take stock and return to the essence of my world was love, to take strength from a.

i wrote about the south bronx i terms that i think most people are unaccustomed to. >> absolutely. >> the south bronx people know is the one portrayed in that famous movie when i was growing of. ugly, dirty, crime and drug- ridden. that is the world that most people think about. i wrote about the people. i wrote about the values of tha community, about the hopes and struggles of the people who liv within those communities so tha others could see a world that was different than their expectations and that could not be a beloved world for someone like me whom that community burst comments so it wasn't an identity of just being a pressure regan, although mind you, that was a really importan

part of this book, to introduce people to an island that many americans think is foreign. you know, it is interesting how many people at best me, did my parents become abusive. so part of my purpose was a little bit education, but it wa more emotional to try to show people how one's life can be endearing and loved and be loved . even more challenges. >> it just occurred to me when you were talking that's if you and i, and the average american and a porter regan had been year , say, 30 years ago, i'm not sure that we could have embrace our ethnic identity so publicly as you have in your memoir.

you think that is right? hosting a black intellectuals who would have to -- the epigraph would be from aerosol or plato or shakespeare if because you had to show that yo were cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world which meant leaving what some people call the debt of your own culture. >> happily. but i think you're right. and privileges that i can do that now. we have grown into a place in our society where we accept diversity as a positive thing. it would not have as existed until after and did not exist until after september 11th biggest people began to realize that we live in a more open and public and international place than we ever have before, and w have to guard the world's

identity in a way that we have been unwilling to recognize before this. i think you're right. the guests have come with us, but it is also because we want them to come with us. >> absolutely. >> a richness in accepting that you and i can be more cognizant today. >> the cost was too high. >> it was. personally. absolutely. how many people the you know from that generation? i'm sure we have friends who ar still tortured by that fracture identity. i would rather not be fractured. i would rather be whole. i think this book is a testamen of how you can get there. >> i agree. the notion of privacy seems bound up to me in the notion of private life, especially that o the family.

want to ask you how your mom, your mother responded once you read the more because i commend this. fascinating and redding. a lot of it is about digest's mother and father. how did your mother respond? and among your family and friends, did anyone feel the u.s. violated her or his? >> the only person that i sough permission from to write about was from my cousin to write about her brother. anyone who reads the book will understand why. my childhood soulmates, my alte ego who died at the age of 28 from aids, drug induced aids. and that had never been publicl spoken about in our family.

and in fact, her aunt on her father's side called after reading the book crying that sh had not known. her response to me after readin the draft of the book was, sonya , i see the level you have shown in dealing with nelson, and as this story can help any child avoid his pitfalls it is worth telling. my mother who -- why did i keep the book for her? she is my mother. >> absolutely. you were terrified.

>> the book describes a presenc of drolen with my mother. we have been shadowing each other is the growth and development my entire life. every step i take in my mother is with me, but unlike the idealized images of the public and before the book came out, i is not a road blocked from perfection. just as justice stephen james - told me when i came to the bench , no one is a chart thai border justice. you grow into it. there are a lot of children and mothers out there that think mothers are born. nobody is born a mother. you figure out how to be a mother. that is what my book shows.

and that his new in writing the book that my mother will understand. she read the book, 86 years old. reading a little bit more slowl than she did when she was under. after each she would call me up. after the first six chapters sh called me crying, so much so that could not get two words that effort. she called me and next to tell me how beautiful the part of th story was. the second set of chapters she called the tell me, i did not know you had done so much. [applause] i am this -- this section that

pistoles my close calls with diabetes she said to me, do you think of stupid? i always knew something was wrong. maybe it isn't because i would have been more frightened. my mother, i think, as very muc enjoyed the buck and has enjoye a greater openness between yes, even on the issues. >> city bring you closer? >> absolutely because i think she now understands what motivates my secrecy about my health issues with her, and we have actually talked about, since the book. i made her promise that i ever have a health condition is serious i will share with her. >> it is important to note that her mother was a nurse.

so -- >> the great irony of this. which is because she is an aris see clearly knows all the dangers, and it amplifies her fierce and so it made it worse for her. >> but you have been injecting yourself since your age. where did you get the courage? i mean that's one thing. >> yes. they don't teach you on oranges any more from what i here. thank god. hitting an orange is nothing like getting your own arm, i ca assure you. i did not perceive it that way. in fact, i need a lot of the male diabetics now. many of them who still have not figured out how to give themselves a shot. my first words to them is, take control of your life. do not let you're past until yo

thataway because of your freedo is the most important thing tha you can have, and the fear of losing my freedom, my freedom t go to my grandmother's house, visit friends, that was more valuable to me than the fear of the injection. >> it's just occurred to me tha reasons that we both understand first hispanic supreme court justice, but if you found that you're the first diabetic

supreme court justice, would this be something important to you? >> i don't know if that would b important, but -- and actually, what we know? how many supreme court justices have hit next? >> they all would have. >> exactly. and i suspect that there are many people. one of the reasons i was so opened with my diabetes was to encourage people with illness t be more open. think it is important. i talk about some of my new situation is being a product of my secrecy. bad to answer your question, th first thing and describe in my preface, the very first opening of the buck outside of my initial comments are about my diagnosis. the job offhand and not describ yourself as a person who has dealt with not having and as th

people from boston will? we don't have lens today? having the disease is a part of your life, an inescapable part of your life. it is inescapable that it will have an impact on your character , for better or for worse. and i think that excepting that within myself took time. i can help anyone diabetic chil who reads my book to come to terms with that reality sooner, then the book is valuable. >> i have had several operation on my foot. all sorts of complications. i tell my students in my intro course that when they are rolling into the operating room the last thing on my mind is th history of black americans. [laughter] [laughter]

i am not a black man at this time. [laughter] >> your honor, in the purpose o your book you talk but the importers of dreaming is a way of developing aspiration and drive. you dreamt of becoming a lawyer and judge after falling in love with a still famous border region nancy drew and perry mason. he eventually had to give up on a career in the military and/or as a police detective, one of your early fantasies, because o diabetes. also very much a story about overcoming obstacles that the same time. the loss of your father, he was 42. his alcoholism, your mother's challenges as a single parent, loss of your cousin to drugs, aids, complications, and your force, but you don't make excuses. when you write about your father's tragic early death, fo instance comice a command ' i know he did this to itself. even as a child i knew he was

the one responsible. it is on page 44, and then on page 49, there was no saving popov from himself. my question is this. avoid such resolve social problems, where does individual responsibility and the shaping force of the environment start and stop? >> i don't know the answer to that, but i do have one answer for al i proposed. i cannot change you. who you are and how you respond to what you do, those are your choices. my choices are to change me. in so as an individual i tend t look at situations and not try to figure out what you need to do to fix them. i stuck with figuring out what need to do to help the situation

. in that think that that's is where you draw the line, which is not trying to assess blame, who is irresponsible, you or me but for you to start and all of us as a society to start with, if you fix this, things will be better. ..

>> how would that graduating senior in princeton assess the life you have lived against that quotes today? is out going into any detail of cases pending. [laughter] what are the causes not yet won? >> now you really are trying [laughter] and i once got in trouble for saying i plead the fifth [laughter] so i won't do that anymore. i am still fighting to ensure better education.

[applause] in with the judicial code i can lobby, i can sunrays, so what can i do? this book is part of the effort to look at inspiring the citizens to become more actively involved to better the education of our kids. and empowering kids because by the way every public event that i do whether at a law school or a university as it was just one day ago in colorado, it has been open but the public launched

a new judicial state court in colorado. i insisted they had an event that includes kids. generally my favorite audience was middle school and high-school and college when possible but middle school and high-school because ms. hill we need to excite them about the idea of education to give in to their curiosity that i have done a very good thing. i do not speak just to amplify my voice but i stick in my head because i didn't know what a voice would sound like. it was curiosity. and it has kept me learning

my entire life. so that is the cause i hope i am still working and to improve educational opportunities. >> we have one more question. what would that graduating senior the most employ, this is not the last question. [laughter] >> what would that graduating senior be most surprised about? the way your lives turned out? >> it wasn't a dream to get on the supreme court, it was a fantasy and one that i never seriously contemplated. and in even greater fantasy of swearing in the vice president were throwing the first pitch at the yankees' game.

[laughter] [applause] beyond all of those things which enter those far-fetched dreams, being number one on "the new york times" best-seller list. [laughter] [applause] so what is beyond fantasy? for the kids who spoke spanish before english or spend college trying to learn how to right and with help with every good book has people who help but to get to that place of storytelling, that was the most far-fetched of paul. >> you are a great storyteller.

clap. [applause] >> final question about the kraft of writing. >> he does not give up. [laughter] >> it is also cinco day maya but there is a striking analogy between the issuing of the judgment between crafting the story imagining yourself in the shoes of both parties, showing your story achieves intended purpose, if you're darlings will distract from the purpose so first, your honor , what is different between crafting people opinions and speeches or writing a memoir and second what will might to reading fiction play to develop the capacity to imagine oneself and another's shoes? >> as you learn from my book

i have learned the art of persuasion is absolutely necessary to be a good lawyer and a good judge. it is the same part you need to tell the story. you have to persuade the person who is listening to you whether in verbal speech or reading you, that there is a purpose to what your talking about. and if you have to explain that in a captivating way. now the audiences are different when i write a legal opinion. the audience are the lawyers, other judges, a history. and as i explained earlier you have to write an opinion

so that you are not just announcing that it is based and proven to be the fabric of the law. so that is a different kind of writing and can be more tedious than a book but they have to have the power of storytelling. you have to come away reading my opinions and believing that i have persuaded you by the force of my logic. it is easier to do that when you read my dissent because that is my voice alone. and in many ways when i want to show someone the power of my legal reasoning i say read my dissent because when you are crafting the majority opinion you have to kraft for as many people that will join that. if you have the unanimous opinion if you are a writer

you have to know how hard that is. if you are a fiction writer you satisfy a different kind of audience that you take your book to and with the power of your idea you can structure your book that way alone. there is something slightly different with judicial craftsmanship. but both of them at essence come from the same to persuade. >> is there a novel and your future, your honor? >>. [laughter] not for a long time. you writers were carted to a comedian to write this book to figure that out. i right legal opinions and it isn't easy begs writing a book is much harder than i ever imagined when i started. if i had known how much work went into what i might not have done it.

[laughter] >> ladies and gentleman please give up for justice sotomayor. [applause] [applause]

>> i put him in the back because i went over it and not that i had any personal friendship and i did not do it out of that i knew him but a case that i read. i read the book mr. chairman, and i read that book and try for the life of me to figure how rostenkowski went to prison and the rest of them didn't for the post office scandal. i read that he did it. but the siegelman case is interesting because especially the fact he refused to give information. >> i don't know why some day could not have compelled him at that time for the legal

case but it was a very fascinating deal. of course, abram loft was involved with the money raising. involved with the money raising. >> $20 million and abram off when he was speaking he said $20 million but to what end? this man had been in jail. >> it was a gamble because the amounts of money because siegelman wanted to legalize

gambling through the lottery with through the midst of the casino owners also the judge, the second judge who you brodeur book -- right in your book [inaudible] with $300 million, and nobody knew about it. and the judge who own 44% of the company but nobody knew about that. [inaudible] >> i did not know. some people decided to write about i found a fascinating

when i looked at the issue of what on earth happened and of course, speenine he spent all that many the when i got it out of federal prison that we lovingly referred to as the bush housing program at that time [laughter] i did something i swore i would not do which is listen to ellen ratner telling me i need to do radio i don't need everything public i need quiet and to sit around and she said you have experience and working history so do it so the first show we did alan did it with me and of course, i knew who tom hartman was but today in washington you are to the left or the right. it doesn't matter how he is

classified but he is fair and he knows journalism and an accomplished author in other fields. so i was a little nervous but it went well and i continued to do the radio gig and did my show and with my longtime friend and that was interesting thing to do but after a while i did not like doing "the daily show" soy continued to do daily radio that i ventured over to india. what do what -- what do you do when you went to recharge? you go to india. there's a chapter called incredible india and i stayed about a fiver seven minute walk from the dali lama residents and the tibetans and it is a fascinating place so it provided the opportunity to write this book because i

came over there for a couple months and focus and then come back in between watching my granddaughter also with the bush recovery program i was able to write this book and our editor was absolutely amazing. and changing lives press and never thought i would do a book but my cousin, said god rest his soul, i always told the republicans he coined the phrase of the gipper and ronald reagan that was his successful moneyed -- muddy movie soil is give him credit for that. but might cousin city need to write a book i just never thought i would write this one or this way i did not do it at first and i outlined

that in here but then i did 60 minutes with my former chief of staff. we agree to do 60 minutes together because they said we will have jack abramoff on 60 minutes then neil then you and we talked and it was better to have the two of us i think it shows and honesty factor if i said this he could say no. or vice versa so it was a better way to do that i went to india for a one month tripp but when i saw it i watch jack abrams often i will make it clear that he did not do this to me i did this to myself period. so i don't say he made to me but i made those decisions but i watch jack abramoff on 60 minutes that i felt some empathy he was in prison i feel empathy for anyone who

has done time but beyond that i wondered where jack was going with his version of history. when i heard him say he is part of the story because i get caused oleaster still live ohio and i amassed all the time what happened to you? and this book tells a complicated story. it is not as easy as jack having dinners and here i go. it is a complicated story were i have my part then there are other parts so it is the perfect storm the way i put it together the outside influence to help

with what i created in the crimes are committed. also the book is important to me i want to mention the dealing with iran and the opportunities that iran would have recognized israel and would have disbanded has the lot and recent bad deal to the white house to ignore it and maybe things would have been different. so i wanted to mention that on the international basis i was a part of that but the other part is about federal prison at i was a law maker and became lawbreaker and went into prison. very challenging and fascinating i sat with the high-profile person that i first met in the back of the room the of the finance baking committee but i was in handcuffs, mike oxley the

chairman said removed the handcuffs from the man and he testified on whitewater and that is how i met webb hubbell the first time that the second time i was a self reporter and allen said you have to meet him i sat here and know how many hours maybe four or five and he walked me through how you survive the number one. that was the best amount of time also gave me insights into the former chief justice supreme court and attorney general and he was very empathetic to the plight of people in prison and i walked out knotting free and not thinking and i was a former congressman that thinking i had a bond

with a lot of people and i need to tell that in this book and i have because things are going on inside those walls and expect anyone to have sympathy for me but i have the ability to have a network and the ability to stand here tonight and be on television, writers, radio and print media a lot of people don't have a voice inside those walls and we are warehousing human beings we're not rehabilitating but this administration has statistics of the big drug dealers to put them away ironically became friends not the white caller criminals but the drug offenders there are a lot of attics now they are a statistic they're not getting treatment. the other part is no personal struggle being in recovery with addiction. i have a message i think in

the book that i say you don't have to be in politics to make your life go down it can happen to anybody. the matter what you do with your life profession, you can and just substances and your body and is focused and not pay attention and go down a path that will cause personal problems like the cost of recovery information couple funny stories about congress and i give credit to some members of congress and some things that will shock people with the section on congressional spouses that is pretty nice so i came to a conclusion in the book. else did not write that conclusion and it was simple

but when jack abram loft and i did with our staff that was the biggest scandal of it it's time, etc. but what we did has been codified into a legal situation today. if i am a lobbyist i can have a fund-raiser wants to do that i can take you hunting, i can take you to vegas last do they had a fund-raiser i put that in the book and either side of the aisle can do this, citizens united, i thought john mccain and campaign reform twice. his bill was still worth less as it was back then he made a loopholes and 527 but at the end of the day with citizens united ruling with lack of true campaign finance reform bill you have

a situation today where the super pac comes along we can pick on karl rove for george soros for but they go after people that means $3 million to counter so they take this effort and they get on the telephone and they do that. they are victims of the system many members would like this to change many do not find it delightful some like it but a lot of them don't. there is a lot of good members. but that comes to the conclusion of jack abrams of going away, people with felonies that did not change anything. it may make them feel more comfortable but it did not change things. so i put that conclusion

there and i ended with a'' federally like to paraphrase says i had an addiction and today there is another edition of campaign contribution they need an intervention matt to make it a beautiful place and make it better so i address a lot of issues in the book and i hope it is not just one issue or attacking one person i am not bitter i spend time with my granddaughter today i get to go to india and i can do radio with a lot of great people like tom harkin to the right or the left on the middle it is important that it is critical and i am happy. not that i am not happy or

want to get everybody but i could not leave it out to. as my grandmother said this too shall pass but she did not say it would take this long. thank you for coming.ble flings [applause]odies. >> there is no word the process food industry hates n more than the word addiction and they do try to to use itore sparingly because they i becae theyvincingly argue there are some differences between food cravings and as bet narcotics cravings and some thresholds, however, when they talk about the lower of ty foods the language can be so revealing they used wordso like snapple, credible. snapple snackable, moorishness. and i was rathe

one

>> representative walden what is on your summer reading list? >> i just finished victory

lap -- victory lab and it talks about the campaign's but i am hoping this summer to get to the biography on jefferson which i have on my kyle and i have a new one on teddy roosevelt i am a big fan of theodore roosevelt. with his energy and style and one that deals mainly with his time in south america. that should be interesting