his first book is blackmun felt the capital on the african-american history in and around washington dc. he may have to go ahead and talk about his book. and the last but not least is adam liptak, hoover started as a copy boy in 1984 when he returned for a law degree in 1988. for a while he was in the in-house legal department telling them what they couldn't do, but it later became a topic where he studied law and was a lawyer's assistant. his work has also appealed to the new yorker and other publications. looking at "the new york times", i saw a full-page ad announcing his brand-new book, which is being public the week from today. and it is called "to have and uphold." it is about same-sex marriage and the fight for it. i heard you divide today. okay, one more preliminary note, which is there should be an evaluation form from the dc bar. and maybe someone can distribute those. i'm going to sit down and join the panelists. let's start talking about last week at the court. the court saved all big of its cases. the affordable care act came down last week. tony, would you like to start

we made said blackmun don't even want to see their children. i have to force the state to allow me the opportunity to renew my son who is now 35, more graduates like you. so to me that's extremely important for us not to just stigmatize, special black fathers because most nonresident fathers are involved in the lives of their children. statistically speaking but we don't about that. final you asked what can the white house do. i think the white house can set the tone. i think when the president spoke the other day, and because he's calm, he's rational, he's reasonable. he says it in a charming, majestic manner that that communicates the kind of anger and passion that is righteous in this country that should articulated. but he translates that into a tone that others may be able to year. but we need more, not less of a. i know he was being humble when he said look, politicians can't leave that. i was the politicians get involved in this. be involved. because if the president of the united states of america, your skin speech before your mouth ope

president eisenhower's disappointment in earl warren and more recent examples, or like harry blackmun and david souter. i think we do not see that sort of pattern anymore. by and large, at least across the board, there is much more of the correlation between what presidents thought they were getting and how the justice actually performed. the third question has a ring of popular debate about it. can we hang the label of judicial activism on the roberts court? that would take time we do not have, to take a party meeting of judicial activism. it basically means you do not like what the court did. if you do not like what they did, they must be a bunch of activist judges. it is hard to get past that definition. sometimes, the roberts court has --haved as a minimalist score court years ago, when they decided the northwest and boston municipal case looking at the voting rights act of 1965 and avoiding a constitutional decision in that case. sometimes the roberts court uses uses avoidance techniques, such as standing in the proposition 8 case, sending that case back on standing grounds. in o