their authorities, they know they have the hammer of the grades over them, regard scalia and clarence thomas as ridiculous, as not worthy, having opinions not worthy of consideration. so any conservative student going through school today in america, will know that this is not a really good institution to try to succeed in, where, the judgments are all subjective. of course, if you're a nuclear physicist, it doesn't matter. and in fact, when i went to columbia to speak, i was introduced, the college republican, who was the public face and introduced me, said i'm not really the college of republicans, but i'm in the astro physics department, but i got designated because they can't hurt me. it's terrible to have to say this about american universities. i just think this is an absolute disgrace. the one thing i will say negative about all those decent professors is they're not standing up for these students, and they're not standing up for the principle of intellectual diversity on their faculties and they do nothing about these departments, which are just political parties. it's women's studie

also, the clarence thomas dissenting opinion, which says, you know, things have changed in the voting rights act has outlived its need, which is a clear victory, it's no longer a recommended for intentional discrimination because there's no more intentional discrimination in the voting area, he says. but it's got a very mild tone to it. it's not an angry dissenting opinion. so there is another theory floating around that maybe it had started as a majority opinion or a putative majority opinion by somebody or pieces of it by some group of people and that that was then pulled back and it was left with justice's thomas' name on it as a dissent because it doesn't read like a clarence thomas dissent. you look like you want to jump in. >> i think, just having listened to the chief justice and trying to explain what he meant by deciding cases on more narrow ground, looking for greater consensus, i think that this case is one that you can easily read as a perfect example, whether by intention or just by results, of what the chief justice was talking about doing. it's quite extraordinary on th

then pulled back and it was left with just thomas's name on it, because it doesn't read like a clarence thomas dissent. you look like you want to jump in. >> i think just having listened to the chief justice and talking about it and trying to explain what he meant by deciding cases on more narrow ground, looking for greater consensus, i think that this case is one that you could easily read as a perfect example, whether by attention or just by results of what the chief justice was talking about doing, it's quite extraordinary, and incredibly divisive and significant issue that we had a eight justices speaking with one voice, including some of the more liberal justices who were willing to sign an opinion that says the voting right acts raisesser is serious constitution -- raises serious constitutional concerns. granted they took a step back from taking the next step in striking down provisions of that act, as some had urged the court to do, but it's a pretty extraordinary product when you look at this decision. i think about how this court has spoken, and then you can contrast it to the case th

and also the clarence thomas dissenting opinion which says things have changed and the voting rights act as our lives need, we should declare victory. is no longer a remedy for intentional discrimination because there is no more intentional discrimination in the voting area. has a very mild tone to a. is not an angry dissenting opinion is so there is another theory floating around. and have started as a majority opinion or a punitive majority opinion by somebody or pieces of it by some group of people and that that was and then pulled back and was left with justice thomas name on it because it doesn't mean like a clarence thomas' dissent. jann, you look like you want to jump in. >> i think having listened to the chief justice and talking about how i've tried to explain what he meant by deciding cases on a more narrow ground, looking for a greater consensus. i think that this case is one that you could easily read as a perfect example whether by intention or by results of what the chief justice was talking about doing. is quite an extraordinary in this incredibly divisive a significan

to remember president bush spoke about clarence thomas as a man who would have empathy, and nobody complainedbout that. so let's stop grasping at straws. the question is will she follow what law. she has for years. the law has always been her controlling factor. she knows that a lot better than most of us. i cannot speak for people who have restrictive gun laws, like arizona and texas. >> [inaudible] >> later, jeff sessions brief them on the upcoming confirmation hearing. >> sorry to keep you waiting. wheat shared similar experiences as a district judge, and a trial judge. i think that is a good background for any judge, particularly a supreme court judge. and we talked about the views on law and other matters relating to how a judge conducts themselves on the bench. i commend it to her and what we talked the day she was nominated, i said she will get a fair hearing in the judiciary committee. she will be treated respectfully, she will be given opportunities to answer any allegations out there, and i think it is going to be a good time. this is the best hearing we have ever had. and there are

she is married to clarence thomas, and he is a man i admire very greatly and have known since before he was known to many other people. i think highly of him and very highly of her. i have had this idea for a long time, since the beginning of the claremount institute days that there are things you should know to call yourself a leader in america. you can find those things in correspondence between jefferson and madison, for example, who laid out a curriculum. people not know those things very much anymore. another thing that is going on that i think requires explanation. we think the declaration of independence is the first deck in a development, and so is the constitution. they are good, they are great, but they all -- the signal virtue they have is that they allow for this development. and so they live. the trouble is that things can be done in their name that are obvious abnegations of what they mean. the trouble with that argument is that it cannot be true in one specific respect. it was not the opinion of those people who wrote the documents, nor what they said, that they are ot

the pre clarence thomas has felt was of very valuable tool to deal with potential and actual discrimination against voters. congress recently reauthorize the voting rights act. i just want to get your view as to how important you think free clarence provisions are and how you will be monitoring with the supreme court decision might restrict. >> we await the supreme court's decision, but that portion of the voting rights act is a key for our efforts in trying to protect the voting rights of all americans. if you look at just the numbers, even though we have made great progress in this nation, the number of cases that are brought under that section have not dwindled. the fact that congress unanimously three years ago, two years ago, reauthorize the recognition on the part of congress of the need to still exist, we argued very strongly for the continued viability of that section. it is our hope that the court will agree. we will see what the supreme court decision is and will have to react to it. it is our view that this administration's view that section 5 is a critical part of the voting rig

so i think different justices do the way to oral argument and i think one of the reasons that clarence thomas says he doesn't speak of oral arguments he says there is no point in them at all. >> i am afraid we need to wrap it up here but i think that we could have a conversation that lasts another hour on the topic of oral arguments but we've been talking about the new book by tim johnson and jerry goldman, "a good quarrel" but not by michigan press the i want to thank the panelists for making the time to talk about oral arguments. it's been a fun exchange and latterly there are no quarrels on this today. i want to thank georgetown university law center for hosting the discussion and want to thank you for coming and watching today. thank you. [applause] >>> jerry goldman is in northwestern and for some professor of law and directs the oyez project. timothy johnson is university of minnesota professor of law and political science. for more or informational and timothy johnson, visit law.umn.edu. for information on jerry goldman, oyez.org. >>> the c-span's six bus is traveling the country visit

i think one of the reasons clarence thomas says he doesn't speak at oral argument is he says there'sno point in them at all. >> well, thanks i'm afraid we're going to need to wrap it up here. i think we could have a conversation that lasts another hour on the topic of oral arguments. but we'd been talking about the new book edited by tim johnson and jerry goldman, "a good quarrel," put out by the university of michigan press. i want to thank our panelists for coming and making the time to talk to us about oral arguments. it's been a fun exchange and gladly there are no good quarrels on the bench. i said to thank georgetown university law center for hosting our discussion and i want to thank you for coming and watching today. thank you. [applause] >> jerry goldman is a northwestern university professor of law and directs the oyez project a multimedia supreme court archive. timothy johnson is a university of minnesota professor of law and political science. for more information on timothy johnson, visit law.umn.edu for jerry goldman, oyez.org. >> here's a look at some upcoming book fai