what baker v. carr did was to correct that. we made enormous strides towards the realization of real democracy. >> what would say chief justice warren's legacy is in this area? >> if it wasn't for chief justice warren, i don't think we would have ever had this outcome. it's very interesting that the present supreme court consists of eight former federal appeals court judges and a deen of the harvard law school. that court, i don't think if there was any federal appeals court judges on it. there might have been one. but earl warren was a former governor. doug has had been a chairman of the securities and exchange commission. black had been a former senate. there were a lot of pom ticks in the back ground of the justices in those days. i wonder if you had that same composition of the court then that you have today, whether the outcome might have been different. earl warren placed a huge stamp, and i think part of it was because he was a politician. he's one of three chief justices that had run for rtpresident, b the way. >> we ha

baker v. carr responded to another decision of one man, one vote. specifically gray v. sanders in state of georgia with the county unit system, could you speak to some of the cases that were spawned as related to baker v. carr, specifically of the elimination of the county system in the state of georgia? >> we will. and i'm going to entice you to stay with us for another 15 minutes because our final segment will be the legacy of this decision including the immediate spate of cases the court took up. so thanks for asking that question. let me get to judith in alaska. and then we'll get to oral argument. thank you, judith, you're on. >> thank you very much. my question is this. i understand that the court still allows significant variation in districts by like up to 10%. so i live in a state, in a district that has been consistently over populated while other districts in my state have been consistently over populated. so over the course of the 40 years i've lived here, you can see how pretty effectively been deprived of a vote. why does it allow such a huge variation? >>

eastern, we'll look at baker v. carr. in the 1962 case, the supreme court ruled that federal courts have the authority to intervene in cases about redistricting. the defendants in the case had argued that drawing legislative districts is a political question not a judicial one. but the justices ruled courts have a role in deciding the fairness of electoral maps. landmark cases on baker v. carr tonight on c-span3. 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> a civil war special featuring american history tv highlights. on monday, we're at the emerging civil war blog symposium. where we look at the great defenses of the civil war. including gettysburg and the siege of vicks burg. tuesday we focus on civil war leadership at the longwood university civil war seminar with talks on generals robert e. lee, ulysses s grant. on friday we conclude the conference with t.j. styles. american history tv civil war special all next week beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >>> american history tv continue ours look at supreme court cases regarding the r

thursday night on c-span we take a look at the 1962 case, baker v carr. which framed the drawing of electoral districts as a kns tugal issue and not a political one. join us at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3, on-line at c-span.org and streaming on the free c-span radio app. earlier in the day, a conversation on regulatory pro techs with the coalition for sensible safe guards. we will hear stories from people who claim to be harmed by inadequate regulatory p protections. that's live at 10:00 a.m. more from washington state university vancouver professor onm professor on mappv ohio on illegal search and seizures. before the decision in mapp, the remedy of excludeing evidence was unpredictable at best. now today we sometimes take for granted the fact that courts will protect us against unconstitutional searches or seizures. if a police officers enters or searches our home, our car, our purse, our cell phone, we expect that the judge will prohibit that evidence from being used in a subsequent prosecution against us. motions to suppress evidence are now ex

they include baker v. carr in 1962. gr griswold v. connecticut. u.s. v. windsor in 2013. and most recently last year king v. burwell. >> amy mulligan asks should we as americans be concerned about judicial view becoming judicial activists? >> former chief justice -- that doesn't mean we're going to agree on how that power is going to be exercised. and there should be healthy disagreements about that. frequently if somebody doesn't like the outcome of a decision of a supreme court that invalidates an action that's unconstitutional, they view that as judicial activism, from whichever perspective. so there should be a very, very vigorous discussion about how the supreme court exercises that jurisdiction. but the fact that it has that authority to provide the last word on constitutional issues is, i think, a very important protector of our liberty. >> so since you mentioned king v. burwell i want to give a shout out. there have been four times since oufr history when a new president representing us as a sort of rising political force has confronted a court representing ghosts

thursday night on c-span we take a look at the 1962 case, baker v carr.of electoral districts as a kns tugal issue and not a political one. join us at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3, on-line at c-span.org and streaming on the free c-span radio app. earlier in the day, a conversation on regulatory pro techs with the coalition for sensible safe guards. we will hear stories from people who claim to be harmed by inadequate regulatory p protections. that's live at 10:00 a.m. more from washington state university onm professor on mappv ohio on illegal search and seizures. before the decision in mapp, the remedy of excludeing evidence was unpredictable at best. now today we sometimes take for granted the fact that courts will protes

thursday night on c-span we take a look at the 1962 case, baker v carr.g of electoral districts as a kns tugal issue and not a political one. join us at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3, on-line at c-span.org and streaming on the free c-span radio app. earlier in the day, a conversation on regulatory pro techs with the coalition for sensible safe guards. we will hear stories from people who claim to be harmed by inadequate regulatory p protections. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern.