[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 benc

steve ammon almond and jeff easter brook, and books by robert trotta and anna harvey. booktv in prime time begins at 8 p.m. eastern. and join us on c-span for live campaign 2014 election night coverage. see who wins, who loses and which party will control congress, and engage with us by phone, on twitter @c-span, or at facebook.com/c-span. leading up to tonight's election results, c-span's asking what you think about voting on facebook. do you vote and why or why not? marsha writes: yes, we're blessed with the right to vote. i vote to honor them and have a voice in the process. and jason says: no, it's a waste of time, and it accomplishes nothing. the system is rigged to prevent any real changes, so your vote is meaningless. you can see what others are saying and share your thoughts at facebook.com/c-span. >> the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway, open to all middle and high school students to create a 5-7 minute documentary on the theme, "the three branches and you," showing how a policy, law or action by the executive, legislative or the judicial

harvey. good morning and thank you for being with us. >> good morning, anna. you for having me. >> those in forsyth county had to sensor the way they prayed, anything that was too christian, you couldn't say jesus christ during the prayers. can you breakdown that case for us? >> sure. after seven years the federal court confirm what had the supreme court said earlier this spring, that the freedom to open public meetings with an uncensored prayer is protected by the constitution. >> right. so this decision that came down and made from the supreme court of the united states, this was the grief versus gallaway, our tradition assumes that adults can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith. so basically just respect the different religion, correct? >> absolutely. the way we affirm diversity is not by censoring speech but by opening up the opportunity to everyone. and in forsyth county, that's exactly what the county did. they opened it up to any religious group within the assembly, within the county, and invite

. >> host: anna harvey is supposed with the gay marriage case the majority in the house democratic president and democratic senate gave marriage comes to the supreme court? >> guest: my answer is the role the probabilities is the world that i lived in. one of the interesting things about the evidence is the role of public opinion. one of the things i was thinking maybe you find the supreme court is responsible may be public opinion is driving them both so we know it is striking how same-sex marriage has evolved over time to push any direction if you think the court balls to public opinion to legalize same-sex marriage. however if you're looking at the fax for public opinion the court does seem to respond to the incentives of the constitution. so my best bet as long as you have a republican house why the court needs to respond to the house in particular so i would bet it would respond and not legalize same-sex marriage. but it is worth pointing out the case of california in which a state court has struck the california bay and as a referendum and it comes up in the supreme court allows the st