>> this is available as a podcast. all "after words" programs can be viewed on our website on booktv.org. and now on c-span2's booktv, more television for serious readers. [applause] >> good evening. welcome to the new york historical society. i'm the president and ceo. and robert jeffress is part of

our distinguished speakers series. and we welcome our find speakers to the stage. [applause] >> i like to recognize and thank the trustees who have joined us this morning. duty berkowitz, suzanne x, joel pickett and size sternberg. i want to thank each and every one of you and michael weisberg. how did you not appear on my list? in any event i would like to thank each and every one of you and thank you for all you do on behalf of new york historical. i should say leading up to the weekend with history in a couple weeks i want to give

special recognition to the chair of our chairman's counsel, and michael weisberg who is the beauty cochair along with suzanne pack, thank you. and thanks to the chairman's councilmembers who are with us tonight. this program lasts about an hour. the q&a will be conducted on notecards, you should have gotten a written note card and pencil, my colleagues are going up and down the hour with notecards and pencils. your questions on notecards will be collected later on in the program. there will be a book signing following the program and copies will be available for

purchase in the history store. we are thrilled to welcome alan dershowitz to new york historical this evening. and the supreme court correspondent for the washington post and usa today. she is also a surprise finalist and books on author sandra day o'connor and in tone and scully and sonja sotomayor. release book is robert jeffress and as i said, it is available for purchase. we are also very pleased indeed to welcome jared kushner back to new york historical. she is the chief washington correspondent for national law journal and covered the us supreme court for 130 years and is a regular contributor to the newshour and she has written

for publications like vogue, ms. magazine and the new york times and is the author of the roberts court, and hours before we begin i would like to make sure anything that makes noise like a cell phone is shut off. thank you for welcome at our guests this evening, thank you. [applause] >> it is wonderful to be back with all of you tonight and wonderful to be here with my friend, my colleague, my supreme court watcher as i am to talk about joan's terrific new book about the chief justice of the united states, john roberts junior. i want to start by giving all of us a sense of john roberts the man before we talk about john roberts for justice on the

supreme court. i want to start with a letter you reprinted in the book. this is a letter john roberts wrote when he was 13 years old to the head of an all-male catholic high school if he wanted to attend. it is a short letter. dear mister moore. the main reason i would like to attend is to get a better education. i wanted to stay ahead of the crowd. i feel the competition would force me to work as hard as i can. at an ordinary high school it would probably be easy - there will be a lot of study and hard work but i feel confident that these laborers will pay off in large amounts when it is time to apply for admission to college. i'm sure by attending and doing

my best i will assure myself of a fine future. i won't be content to get a good job by getting a good education. i want to get the best job by getting the best education. sincerely yours. [alarm] >> we need a little guidance here. >> joan was telling me this is why she loves new yorkers, the fire alarm goes off to you get up and walk out, no complaints, nobody has to tell you what to do, you are real pros. [applause] >> did you hold that thought about that letter? i hope so. i read it to my husband and first thing out of his mouth was he didn't write it, his mother did.

[laughter] >> i have a feeling this was all john roberts and i wanted to ask the mirror of the man he would become. where does this come from? one of your sources said he was hardwired for success. >> john roberts probably did write that letter entirely himself. one of the anecdotes i got was how she went over to the roberts's house for dinner and the first thing the mother said was he got an a on his report card and uncle pulled out a dollar bill for him and this was in the early 60s well before he wrote that letter. i think he was ready to write that kind of letter. and standing out from the crowd, was really character forming for him.

it opened in northern indiana a few years before he was a school-age. it was perfect timing and he gets in and first in his class. the letter reveals his determination, his focus, that line about i don't just want a good job. i want a great job. i don't want to be associate justice but chief. you can feel some of that and lots of factors went into his becoming chief but he has been on this trajectory. >> he has. i wanted to ask, we will talk about john roberts the adult and john roberts the father and he gave an interesting speech at his son's school and the speech got fairly wide coverage in the media because it was different. he basically wished the students that they would

encounter throughout their lives. and they would learn from those. this was somebody who was on a trajectory of success, doesn't appear to have one of those. and some character forming disappointment in his own life that make him who he is today. >> i asked people in his family, his friends, anything he was bad at, can you think of any setbacks and some of his friends who say things like he wasn't a really fast runner. he wasn't great at all the sports but he basically did everything, kenneth starr referred to him as mister everything because he saw the life john roberts continued to talk about, the one setback

that ended up being reversed in the end was when he was nominated by george hw bush to the district, the us court of appeals for the dc circuit as it is known in 1992, only 37 and he didn't get on because democrats control the senate at the time but if he had gotten on then in 1992, he wouldn't be sitting at the supreme court now because he would have more of a record that might have been deceptive and prevented him. those kinds of things worth of a few little instances that folks mentioned because i was looking for something that didn't go right for him.

you situated us in his boyhood when he was one of four children, the only boy with three sisters. he had his father's name, john glover roberts junior, he looked at his father who was a steel industry executive and always had high hopes for himself and the speech marshall refers to that he gave at his son's graduation is still with the idea that you should have setbacks so that you continue to be persistent but the setbacks were not major. >> it was maybe kenneth starr in your book who also said that the roots of roberts's character were his deeply catholic upbringing. can you talk a little about that? >> he grew up in northern indiana in long beach that started as a vacation area for people from chicago in the early part of the century to escape the heat and congestion of the city during the summers and a lovely place to grow up

and a lot of the same kind of people, very white, very catholic, very tightknit community and that was character forming for him. when he went to harvard graduating first in his class and he was turned off by the liberalism at harvard. as an undergrad resident for law school. when he was there he practice his faith, maintained his catholicism. his wife, very strong practitioner. we have a lot of catholics on the courts that catholics who have not been conservative, i

don't want to define that so much but his faith has been very important to him and the one thing i want to mention even though he bristled against the liberalism at harvard, just as he is graduating conservativism is in ascendance. when he finishes his clerkships ronald reagan has just been elected. >> host: what did he hear and ronald reagan? >> guest: the call. there he was working for then associate justice william rehnquist at the supreme court in a prestigious judicial clerkship and is wondering what to do next and listens to ronald reagan in january 1981 and hears him speak about his agenda both economic and social and john roberts says i heard the call and wanted to be part of that and going back to kenneth starr, throughout this entire book.

justice rehnquist called up kenneth starr and said i have this young man, importantly do more government service before becoming a private practitioner and the rest is history. >> host: i was curious if you could describe what his chambers are like. the justice's chambers are often a reflection of who they are, what their interest has been and going to justice ginsburg's chambers, there is opera playing in the background, with southwestern roots. >> he has large chambers as chief, a couple different sitting rooms.

there is a notre dame football, grow up in northern indiana and don't end up and harvard you end up in notre dame. he has always been a notre dame football fan, actually a couple different coaches at the time. landscaped from indiana and maine where they have a vacation home. he has pictures of himself with william rehnquist but also a picture of henry friendly who was us court of appeals for the second circuit judge he first worked with who he had high regard for, pictures of his children, bound law books are there. you can see different parts of his life play out, but the one thing in his chambers, a lot of people come into his chambers but back when he was a young

lawyer his offices were known for being devoid of any pictures. >> we had a colleague named david pike, he often said it was so hard to get a feel on john roberts, he did interview him several times and one thing that struck him with briefs and papers, not a sign of anything personal, no photos that would reveal his extracurricular interests, notre dame football. >> the one thing i didn't get a sense of was whether he had close or trusted friends among the other justices. everybody knows there was the

famous scalia ginsburg friendship, justice breyer and justice o'connor were close, justice stevens and justice souter were close. what about roberts? >> i don't think there's another justice i would describe as a close powell of his. he is friendly with all of them. i think he felt, i think he felt a certain close this for justice scalia because of their background that were similar even though justice scalia was a generation ahead of him. alayna kagan is trying to become a partner to work on things together and that ground is similar to brett kavanaugh. they knew each other from social activities in the chevy chase maryland dc area, belong to the same club so there is

something their too. >> they both like beer. i couldn't resist. that was a cheap shot. i am sorry. it was a long day, there was a fire alarm. >> if you had to pick some adjectives to describe john roberts to somebody, how would you describe it? >> determined, focused, smart, strategizing, controlling, very

controlling, very aware, devoted, always prepared, always prepared, and excellent oral advocate and he shows up at the bench always prepared for cases. most of them do but not all, all the time. he likes things to be predictable. he likes to know what is going to happen. he is not a naturally spontaneous man. when we heard him say in november that line to rebuke donald trump, there are no obama judges, no trump judges, no bush or clinton judges i think he was waiting his moment to say that. it was not off-the-cuff. is not a man who speaks off-the-cuff, very studied, still loves history. before he went to law school, he is still a student of history. >> justice kagan thought she would teach history before she went to law school.

>> they have a lot in common in terms of extracurricular activities. he reads a lot of history, he reads biographies, he likes to golf and for a while he actually was a runner. >> there is a reference that shows a side of him within the court that gives one pause. he was called, i can't remember by whom, king john. can you guess how that -- >> he came in when he was just 50 years old. had a mere two years experience on the dc circuit and had never been on the supreme court whereas when william rehnquist was emigrated chief in 1986 he had 14 years and associate

justice. he knew the personalities and how to work with his colleagues and as justice scalia told me bill rehnquist had enough time to toughen his hide and incomes young john roberts who hadn't had much managerial experience, someone who is naturally reserved and even shy, those are two other adjectives and he initially had trouble navigating among the justices and i think it is constant work in progress how to persuade them. how to work with them. they are all appointed for life. they are set in their ways and the way for better or worse in terms of the tight community, when you talk about things like office space and perks and the budding of the building, the chief can be quite controlling and some of the staffers had taken to whispery way of

calling him king john and there had been some resentments that built up over time that i suddenly get at. i wasn't sure how to handle this. in my interviews before i chose chief justice roberts as the subject, it emerged in the research, the more i found elements of distrust, elements of resentment, wanting to set himself above the others as you read in that letter and i didn't know how much to make of it so i mentioned it at little points in the book but what i end up saying is it doesn't affect the law in the end. it might affect how they navigate on cases. it might affect who picks up the phone to work on a

compromise, who might feel like backing off the concurrence but in the end it is more a human dynamic element than something that affects the law we all live under. >> one time i was interviewing justice ginsburg and roberts had been chief for little while at that point and i asked has the chief justice changed since he became chief justice and she said he hasn't changed since law school. i sort of assumed that meant his ideological views but i'm wondering, has the court changed john roberts in any way? >> good question. i will mention her daughter jane new john roberts at harvard. so she had gotten an advanced -- she mentioned it to me and also mentioned she referred to

him as being born conservative just like me. the court has changed. being chief justice comes with great advantages and benefits to preside over these cases, you start the discussion in the conference, the private meetings they decide cases in. he has controlled things in many ways but also has the weight of the institution on him and it is a personnel job too. he wasn't accustomed to that. and it is a bumpy road for him. it is like herding cats.

chief justice rehnquist -- that is the one thing i realized. he was a tough chief to follow not in terms of the law but personalities. ruth bader ginsburg really liked him and still would refer to him as my chief. the current chief would be like stop that. >> let's now switch gears a little bit and talk about roberts the justice, the judge. if you had to pick three decisions that he has written, if not a majority opinion then at least a dissent, that define him in his tenure, which would you pick?

>> in order of importance, i want to end up with healthcare. the affordable care act case in 2012 that we will devote more time to. the shelby county versus holder case in 2013 which cut back dramatically on the voting rights act of 1965 and the opinion he wrote in the parents involved integration case where he interpreted brown versus board of education in a way that ran counter, in the warren court. they saw his interpretation is being offkilter but he felt strongly about this three. >> which one would you like to start with? >> can we do shelby county? that is something we are continuing, a decision that has not died but had huge ramifications.

5-4 the justices illuminate section 5, section 4 formula for the clearance that was built into the voting rights act, and municipalities that have a history of discrimination. to have any change cleared first by the justice department before took affect to make sure it wouldn't discriminate against african-americans, latinos, the idea was that certain places especially in the south had histories of bias and the federal government wanted to make sure they weren't continually contracting the franchise for minority voters and john roberts had opposed the preclearance for a long time back to his years in

the reagan administration and felt they said their own policies and the federal government shouldn't be meddling and it is a strong project along the way and what we saw in the 2009 case for what he did in 2013 when he wrote the majority opinion that says this is no longer needed. he said these things, don't have these kinds of problems, pointed to the fact that barack obama won the presidency and problems in the north just like there are problems in the south and the south shouldn't be singled out anymore. >> it is a combination of his views on race? >> definitely and in the memos he wrote when he worked for ronald reagan when he was deputy solicitor general for george hw bush and he gets on

the court in 2005. in 2006 the voting rights case that referred to line drawing that will maximize the strength of black voters that had previously been diluted and refers to this sordid business on the basis of race, he does not like any kind of racial classifications. he feels they are debilitating to racial minorities, stigmatizing and as he wrote in the parents involved case i referred to from 2007 that they actually are as bad as the discrimination that led to racial remedies in the first place. >> this is typical of the strategic aspect of roberts.

he goes step by step. he starts in the texas case, divvying us up by race, gets the parents involved. the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop disseminating on the basis of race and get to shelby county and so there is almost a progression. >> very steady on the same track. people say what will he be like? will be the swing vote like justice kennedy? he has given us a consistent pattern. >> just moved to healthcare. you came up with original reporting and healthcare, didn't think it was responsible after all that was written about obamacare but you did in terms of behind the scenes so tell me a little bit about roberts behind-the-scenes. >> back to 2012. it was an election year so

every republican candidate is speaking out against barack obama, and the healthcare law, before the supreme court and a momentous, all individuals have insurance in one sort or another and there was expansion of the medicaid program to help people near the poverty line nationwide. it did not get much attention. we in the court were focused on the individual mandate and challenged violation of congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. this is a really big deal and every single person in this

room follows it in one way or another and when the justices take their first private vote for friday of this week after three days of argument it is a 5-numfour to strike down the individual insurance requirements but what i found out as they voted to hold medicaid expansion. this was not in the public eye as much but it was very important consequential part of the law but everyone was focusing on the individual mandate. the five conservatives including the chief justice ready to strike it down, a violation of congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. the only question remaining was what would fall with it. and the chief starts to have second thoughts where the rest of his conservative brethren want to go. this is nearly 1000 pages of provisions. many of you remember the things your children can say on your health policy until you are 26,

you can't cut off people because of cancer or other preexisting conditions, things that were important to many people which again, businesses were very mixed, member the controversy of the political nature of it so the chief had second thoughts about taking down the whole law as other conservatives voted against it, wanted to do. he starts negotiating with two of the liberal justices, stephen breyer and alayna kagan who have since become partners in other cases and he decides essentially to find new grounds to uphold it under the taxing power. we know that part because we know that in the end when he announced the opinion from the bench he said it couldn't stand under congress's power but could stand the taxing power. many people were surprised.

i did predict all the time that he was going to vote that way but it was wrong because he didn't vote that way. he had voted to strike it down but changed his mind. not only did he change his mind in upholding the requirement, the expansion for medicaid, and he instead said that should be struck down and working with alayna kagan and stephen breyer and that was struck down. >> that was one of the oddest part of that decision was to see kagan and breyer for medicaid expansion. why would they do that? they were giving cover to roberts for trying to show it

was bipartisan and yet basically through under the bus the poor, the elderly who would benefit from the medicaid expansion but at the time everybody said the state would take the medicaid expansion and run with it. it didn't happen. >> it was at the discretion of the states and they thought they would get free money to expand but because a lot of republican-led states didn't want to do what obama was giving them they didn't but here's the thing. at the time i look back and think why didn't i probe the medicaid vote more when justice kagan and breyer suddenly were against the expansion because i had written a story how vigorously they challenged paul clement, the former solicitor general under president bush would argue the medicaid expansion was unconstitutional and all of a sudden they flipped the other way.

i believe in speaking with all the justices about this that they felt over time since john roberts was moving in another direction and they didn't feel confident until the decision was announced, that he was going to stick with them. that is how much things were influx, that they should give him a little something. i was really surprised. i suspected one flipped vote because dan crawford is known and written about it and nobody else had been able to match it at the time although i found out from justices that it happened but when i found about the second switch vote as a reporter you think you need to double check if you found this out correctly but also don't want to take it to too many people because you don't want it reported before your book

comes out but it was amazing and goes to show the kind of compromises that go on behind-the-scenes. >> you said something that struck me, that in the healthcare act, roberts acted in short like a politician and i would assume you also states so did kagan and breyer. >> in the broadest sense of cutting a deal, giving a little, giving up a little. and it wasn't pretty, the decision was criticized in many ways for lacking coherence and strong legal grounding but the law is being upheld, bringing up competing factions. many people gave him credit for

that and that action has continued to define him in the public eye as more moderate than the conservative views on many other issues. >> host: did you ask him at all if he had any regrets about any of his decisions? i'm thinking in particular about shelby county because after that decision was issued we saw almost immediately states in the south implementing voter suppression measures or making it harder for voters to register and also for citizens united, didn't write the majority opinion in citizens united but he wrote a strong concurring opinion and certainly pretty much identified with that as well. did you ask if he has regrets?

>> i can't tell you how he characterized certain things because many conversations were off the record and constantly negotiating what would go on the record. but i can tell you from everything he has written and i observed he just feels that the court itself is right to leave it to elected officials, the court shouldn't police voting violations. localities should be in charge of that and citizens united, he believes more money, more speech, the better. he doesn't see the practical consequences the way many people do and when you talk about the voting rights situation after the shelby county ruling in 2013 almost immediately in texas and north carolina, the state

legislatures past restrictions. they implemented voter id laws, redistributed in ways that were immediately challenged as hurting minority voters. >> i don't want to do what i always do, get to a lot of your questions so i will ask you one more. how does he compare in terms of interviewing and reporting on him to the other justices you have written about, o'connor, soto mayor and scalia? >> the toughest subject start to finish. i know marcia knows this. when i did this book on justice scalia he sat with me for 12 sessions all on the record. he just talked and talked and talked and i would be exhausted. i've got to go now and there

were so many times i was speaking with the chief that i thought if we have those cartoonish thought bubbles over our heads, his would say i can't wait for her to be done and mine would say i just wish you were scalia because it was so hard. i do not like dealing with subjects who only want to speak off the record are on background because i can't take the material out to double check and test it the way i want to and it is harder all around and he had his reasons, he didn't want to give me much. even from things like trying to figure out more about his family. was your mother making jell-o or cooking campbell soup or things that were happening then, hard to get that information out of him or regrets about shelby county.

>> when appointing roberts, did president bush, one of the associate justices to the position. >> this is a great question because he owes his job to the way he was first appointed associate justice into hurricane katrina. here we are july 1, 2005, justice sandra day o'connor announces he's going to retire. it is a huge deal and we could talk at length about that another time but the president george w. bush is looking for a more moderate individual to replace sandra day o'connor who is in the middle and john roberts in the reagan years had not been made public.

he built a reputation as the dc circuit, he represented all manner of clients in private practice so he was an ideal candidate for associate judgeship it was only 50 so he gets named to that and everyone is thinking chief justice william rehnquist has thyroid cancer. he will step down soon and president bush was thinking maybe possibly elevate justice scalia, possibly look for a more seasoned jurist for the position but what happened in the interim before justice scalia does die on september 3rd, hurricane katrina happens and many of you remember we have hundreds, thousands of people die in the gulf region, president bush is roundly criticized for the

federal government trying to solve the problem of many blacks dying and summary without their homes down there. the administration was just embattled when the chief justice dies. by this point john roberts put on a show for senators, not in a confirmation hearing but in the courtesy visit getting all sorts of great reviews and accolades, and it was saturday night, however you got the news and the next morning president bush calls everybody to his office and he says to dick cheney who was a real booster for justice scalia getting elevated i'm going with john roberts and there was not much discussion. it was john roberts, going to be chief justice of the united states at age 50. >> can you speak to roberts's

views on the fifth amendment vis-à-vis new technologies and how it fits into this jurisprudence? >> this is an area where his got a special role in terms of cell phone use, the digital age. in traditional fourth amendment cases, had been quite conservative in terms of car searches, searches of traditional defendant rights, cell phone technology, he wrote the opinion for the court. in terms of protecting what is in our iphones and there was a great queue and a among the justices which showed him not to be as enlightened which led to banter between justices ginsburg and the chief justice soto mayor and the chief and

why would anyone carry two iphones? wouldn't it reveal your criminal? he obviously wasn't like some of his colleagues, one for work, one for the family. he has been quite generous in protecting the fourth amendment rights in the digital age. >> privacy is big with him. didn't you give a speech about technology? and the harms it might cause if you get too wrapped up in it? >> it didn't go as viral. the daughter's speech, a freshman in college for her high school graduation in suburban dc but he talked about trying to pull oneself away from the high-tech world and allow your thoughts to sit for

a while rather than constantly be looking at the screen. >> how did roberts react when president obama publicly criticized him over the citizens united decision? >> he was very angry about that. this was at the state of the union. as many of you remember, it was just a couple days after the ruling in january 2010 when by a 5-4 vote the supreme court conservative majority lifts regulations on corporations and labor unions in political campaigns and president obama criticizes the decision in front of them to the entire chamber in the house but there are the justices sitting with their hands on their lap. they hate being there, being part of the political spectacle and suddenly their decision is being criticized. you might remember samuel alito moused not true and that went

viral and he hated that all eyes were on them for it and a few weeks after that incident he spoke at the university of alabama and said when people get invited to our place of business we don't hold them up for ridicule, we don't do that and it was like a pep rally and he said i don't know why we even have to go. he feels the obligation is gone everywhere since. samuel alito has not. >> what past justices does roberts especially admire? >> chief justice hughes, justice marshall, the fundamental -- he was not our first chief justice, who decided what the constitution means, has a lot of regard for

john marshall and he thought about how history will think of him and that you will not beat john marshall but you don't want to -- chief justice hughes stayed the course during the court packing era. talk of today, hughes and marshall. >> comment on roberts's health and how this will impact his longevity on the court. >> we know so little. >> two epileptic seizures made public. it is hard to get information on the justices health situations, hasn't had one since 2007 when he fell, was up at the vacation home in maine and hit his head and then it

was revealed he had a seizure in the early 90s on a golf course so there were two instances and i have not seen or heard anything that would suggest this is a deep and serious problem that prevents him doing his job. nothing - it is on the top floor, not only this equipment, the highest court of the land and a place to work out with justice ginsburg doing some work down there and -- >> he said he worked out with

breyer at times. >> justice breyer worked out all the time. the chief works out and tries to stay healthy. i say in the book he was a high school wrestler. wrestling, i use it as a metaphor for his ability to leverage. >> how do you anticipate roberts will vote on the gerrymandering issue before the court? >> well, i will tell you. i am one person who thinks he shut the door on partisan gerrymandering. from everything i have observed it is always dangerous to make predictions. we can be wrong but he does not want federal judges in the business, ruling on this extreme partisan gerrymandering that is a problem for so many states. my sense is he would rather leave it to elected officials

which is not thrilled about bipartisan commissions, he voted against the arizona legislation of that type but he didn't tip his hand in the case that was heard this week but what he wrote last year's partisan gerrymandering case from wisconsin i would suspect he's not going to budge. >> later this month at the trifecta film festival there's a documentary that is going to premiere called sleigh the dragon. it is all about gerrymandering and i was able to prescreen it, it goes into the effort in wisconsin that came to the supreme court last term and also told the story of grassroots effort in michigan to get onto the ballot a question about having

redistricting done by an independent bipartisan commission and well worth the time to take a look at it and it is quite good. >> this is a little tricky. could you comment on roberts sending back to the 10th circuit the complaints on brett kavanaugh's performance at his hearing. >> i actually know a lot, the controversy of judges behaving badly, the sexual harassment, against the ninth circuit, how people complain about judges and what happens, are they policing their own? one thing i discovered was a lower court judge under

scrutiny stepped down. here she is, no longer subject of any investigation was the individual judge, the other way to evade scrutiny, the supreme court justices are not covered formally by the federal code of ethics so all these complaints brought against brett kavanaugh initially having nothing to do with what he said in response to the allegations by christine ford, but some of the things he said about his record on the dc circuit. there were several complaints lodged and they were originally filed that the dc circuit where brett kavanaugh had been sitting at the chief justice transferred them to the 10th

circuit so what would appear to be a neutral arbiter would handle it but the transfer, the justices are not covered and sure enough after several months the circuit came back and said we have no jurisdiction, here's a supreme court justice and there's nothing we can do and that was appealed to buy a higher committee. >> still in the 10th circuit, there were -- they expanded the commission at the 10th circuit. there were 81 deals filed and just recently that commission rejected all of the appeals. >> on the same grounds. >> there was a dissenting vote,

one of the female judges on the 10th circuit and one of the judges recused himself are the reasons the judge dissented, we shouldn't be doing this. we shouldn't be hearing an appeal of our own decision and two of the people who brought appeals, this should go to the judicial conference in the united states and two of those who had appeals and had their appeals rejected said they were taking it to the judicial conference so it may end up back. >> what the judicial conference is is a body of federal judges. essentially an in-house review and the initial panel on the

10th circuit said we don't have jurisdiction and i can't imagine a panel of federal judges have jurisdiction. that happened. >> trying to force the issue as part of hr one which is the first bill has a provision in it. and adopt a code of ethics and when they testified on the supreme court budget, they were looking at that. >> it was alayna kagan, she said something to the effect that the chief justice is thinking of possibly proposing the supreme court have its own

code of ethics that hasn't talked to the other justices about it and i went up to the court spokeswoman afterword and said what can you tell us about this and there was nothing to be told. >> one last question, dale will use her cane to get us off. do you know if roberts has rather will read your book. >> i don't know. it just came out this week. i made sure his friend from harvard. major the court had an early copy. i don't think he read the final version. >> do you think he would tell you? >> it is interesting. he generally keeps a lot to himself but i found i often hear different things.

i heard from him in many ways. i don't know about this round. >> take your opportunity to get a signed copy. it is worthwhile reading. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for coming twice this evening. tonight was a bonanza. and and others may have set off the alarm. our museum store, alan dershowitz's book is on sale, join us in the museum store. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> booktv continues on c-span2. ..