but when the lab was asked by congress a 1962 how the money was spent would help the united states during the height of the cold war and he said it will not help but it will make worthwhile of defending. [laughter] >> faq for the talk today i really don't know too much science but as a scientific

pandit explained dark matter he said there is a matter and antimatter and it doesn't matter. [laughter] so a serious question i am curious if matter is starkey and to you cannot see it how do scientists know that it is their? using 95% of the universe is of unknown so what gives the assurance that you can say there is a matter or dark matter we don't know anything about it? explain that to a person

that has not studied physics since high school. >> absolutely a great question. there is so many different ways of evidence of dark matter. we never say with absolute certainty we say with the proof that we have we always try to learn more but i reassure you one thing to show you dark matter that you can see with your naked eye. here is the picture of the sky taken with the hubble space telescope. but what you can see is this little part.

right here and there. it looks like a flair but it is not. their little arcs images from distant galaxies truck -- white traveling to the universe did did you conceive galaxies. so it shows how many structures we should see. so if we see how much bending there is we can tell how much mass or matter

there is an affront to of this cluster you can measure how much you can see and it turns out you have much more mass in that galaxy cluster that ben's though light. that is one. there are many, many more with the gravitational polling. >> thank-you very much. the approach is great. the only thing i dislike more than having by a intelligence insulted this goes to the. [laughter] but this is a subject that nature of the actual universe i was thinking

about all the time what gives me solaces the process of extrapolation with the smallest particles that are measurable to think that our universe might be commensurate to the smallest particle ever measured that there could be multi verses many universe people say like it is a really long time. but they don't get that concept. i wonder if there is any scientific value to that extrapolation? >> yes. we cannot prove it in any way but yes. that existence of dark energy it could be a tiny

little part and here is a picture of that perhaps. that 50 million years that we can see around us it is infinite. but all of that is a tiny piece their differing kinds of universes'. so that explains that mystery of the dark push. we don't know if we did it ever be able to disprove the

idea is so it is very controversial at the heart of one of the biggest questions ever what the reality looks like. people will still have these kinds of ideas absolutely. >> thanks to the audience here now the commonwealth club meeting is adjourned. [applause]

>> host: anna harvey associate professor of politics at new york university also the author of "a mere machine" the supreme court, congress, and american democracy" professor harvey would insure thesis? >> guest: the book is about to questions the first is when the supreme court decides constitutional cases to talk about the constitutionality of the federal statutes with the elected branches. most people would argue the

answer to the question is yes to the politics at nyu with a combination of the following the justices have life tenure and have salaries that are protected by the constitution and cannot be diminished and as a consequence and furthermore that is probably a good thing. sova just thinking about the first part of that that is what the book is about to examine that is any of that true? and the first two parts justices don't have life tenure. look in the constitution

they can be impeached. we know that. the second part is the claim the justices have salaries that are protected is also not true. congress cannot lower their salaries while they're sitting on the bench but their salaries zero because of inflation there is no requirement that the congress increase their salary. so innocents congress can lower the seller by failing to increase. can the third claim that this is independent that is what i set out to answer. there is a lot of new the gritty have reduced the drug that is true? how you can measure things

or deal with the fact we don't have nye's randomized controlled trials so there is a lot of that and i approach is to be as transparent as possible. so i really suggesting a lot of what we teach introductory class is in high school is probably robbed. so i want to be sure to have as much of this i am happy to tell you that that portion of the book is to say here is how you can replicate this.

but the court appears to be responsive to the congress in particular. so our preferences change change, you can see the courts decision even with constitutional cases you can see those preferences. and one time period you can see it clearly during the rehnquist court in 2003. and what is nice about the rehnquist court from the very beginning had a majority on the court appointed a of a fairly conservative majority of the court there was a lot of concern from liberals that

this was the court that would erode many protections that were established by the warren court and held the place so liberals were worried about. and the rehnquist court is not taking on those liberal precedents. by the end of 1993 after florida upheld roe v wade and preserved the policies individuals were worried about coming and the court said we thought this would be a dangerous corporation predicted not turn out that way. then the very next term all of a sudden the court changes course 1994 they

begin the gun-control and americans with disability act, a number of federal protections and it was the first rehnquist court and and nobody knew what happened. as a one of the empirical contributions is to say there is a big important congressional election there was a huge turnover in the house and we can estimate that is how much of any fact it had on the court's decision. and if we just use the cases with the sample of cases of the court's docket every year, the effect of the

congress to aging over from the georgia republican is the increase of 50 percentage points and the likelihood the court would strike liberal. it takes the court from having a fairly low thinking was strike the liberal statute to having 70% that most likely to uphold so it is the biggie fact. with get something slightly more sophisticated that the court selectively chooses the deck -- the rocket we don't get a sample of cases than we give estimates of larger effect. is a very large effect.

so most of the book is walking through the history including the warren court the burger court era of the rehnquist court to show a the quantitative data what people saw and talked about and how we can see their responsiveness. for example, is the time with the conservative majority over the first seven years. but the warren court is the courts that largely has the majority in congress. pond that is working in tandem with not obvious constraints.

so we could simulate what would have been with a much more conservative congress. that we tend to think of the warren court has said very independent guarantor during that period. and what the evidence is now suggesting the warren court could be the warren court because it had a supportive democratic congress. it would not have been able to issue many of those rulings had had a separate conference. think about that working in tandem with a friendly congress. and laying out the evidence for the claim it is much more democratically accountable than maybe we

thought it was. the second question the book addresses is that a good thing or of bad thing? that is the more interesting policy questions what kind of court do you want? that it is independent this is a good thing. debris would have fewer rights and liberties in the united states today if we did not cover independent federal court. so they investigate that claim we have projections around the world so looking

to see if that is true but there is said different story for democracy for countries like us that is very much not the case the independent court provides greater protection the more independent the courts are the fewer protections to write civil liberties we have. so if you care maybe you do not. if you think they should have more protection than ours would be better off than said democratically accountable from what we have. however one of the findings findings, i was surprised at the end of the book that i had not expected if you

prohibit your courts to make constitutional -- constitutional rulings on statutes or half of a way around it like it in canada the canadian charter allows the provincial legislature to end federal legislature with of notwithstanding clause. if they're making a policy they insert a clause that says essentially this will be good law notwithstanding it does not conflict with rights or the birdies. even if the court finds it is in a conflict with the constitution or charter they cannot strike it it

continues to be notwithstanding conflict. it is prohibited to the courts from striking a statute is being unconstitutional. so they're not allowed to exercise as power and those are the highest those that prohibit that receive the highest levels so that is where the book ends so maybe we have that backwards because we have an independent court maybe it is the fact it is not independent but the rights and liberties that we have that you can have more if we

have that you all together. that is a joint argument of the book. >> in the most independent countries with rights of every measure of rights protection why do you think that is? >> it stems from we believed for a long time the courts are a good thing while simultaneously believing it is not. we have an argument why we are better off. we think democratically representatives are accountable to preferences among other things for individual rights and liberties.

and because legislators would be pulled for the majority preference. if you have an institution that is not democratically accountable that pull the legislators feel for more protection. the act of 1965 was enacted by elected legislators for a widely felt at the time we felt now is the time. so for a long time the

supreme court protected allowed to remain standing with the maturities on the house on and off of the senate. facing republican majorities in the house to see the court me less protective so as they responded to that poll by and large average ended is bound to respond to legislators to see more protections. >> host: what about term

limits? >> i think elected judges get a bad rap. again i wonder sometimes with that negative opinion of electing judges is a hangover with those independent judges were better. so with them being elected with the localities have can that be good? so my own belief from people boosted the judicial elections across the state is the outcomes compared to the states that they don't is they do a pretty good job.

that we see more protections for example, one piece of evidence is there are more protections for workplace rights against discrimination on the job. and with the court cases for what is that fairly widely felt preference for individual rights in the workplace? i think it is a good thing. >> host: the supreme court as well? >> guest: that is another issue. of course, it is difficult

but i think the evidence suggest it would be better off. that would make that federal judges and justices even more accountable would be positive. rather that follows the canadian example or follow the dutch example or the states. however in the constitution is difficult to amend because part of what makes judicial review in the

united states so impact whole with such an effect is one the core issues of a ruling on the constitutionality of a federal statute it cannot be overcome with simple majorities of the legislative branches. if you want to overturn it it gives the court a power that it is allowed constitutions can be amended as simple majority. a way to raid did your court because they come back like israel for example,. the basic constitution and can be amended by ordinary law in the legislature.

there are instances where the supreme court said this is unconstitutional and the legislatures said we disagree then we can pass another law. so in other words, amendment process is another thing that gives the court more power than you may want in some areas. >> host: nine supreme court justices will see the title of this book "a mere machine" my guess is all nine will say we don't worry what congress thinks of us? >> guest: actually i think they may say something else.

that is wrong and illegitimate and bad policy for the congress to think they can have any affect on us. sometimes members of congress do think they can have an effect to be nipped in the budget. the justices are very fond of writing and saying they should be left alone to do their job. so we all like to be left alone for the power that that is not the way the constitution was designed. part of that is a store called -- historical with

john adams write the thoughts on government that is very influential. it to be well respected so there should be checked on a legislative and executive so there should be on the judicial but the whole point was to make sure there was no single individual or body or institution that was unchecked by others. added does jack the supreme court that justices can be removed.

so to have an interest to secure the independence but that is not the way the constitution works. three o the 2000's with the speaker of the house with representative tom delay went on a crusade we had a conservative majority but not a deaf person in congress but to use the hour of power to cut the budgets for the clerks the justices responded with outrage how dare you?

some of this is why precisely that the elected representatives with that constitutional power. >> does that extend down to the courts with said gay marriage cases that are moving around better coming to the supreme court? would do jurors supposition and? >> the way articles three is written is for all the federal courts the compensation clause is that hasn't diminished of federal

law judges and justices. the inferior courts the district and appellate courts have been additional leverage to be used against the congress that would disestablish by a statutes and then that avenues that the congress has to influence the justices today cannot eliminate the supreme court. and of a lower federal courts b