bork and his fellow friends did with the current welfare frame. this was to passing essentially into law, efficiency argument that has been favored by monopolist for centuries. what do i mean? john d. rockefeller, jpmorgan, they all basically had a single message, competition is wasteful. centralization of control in my hand is efficient. but consider how the logic of the consumer welfare argument plays out over time. the logic goes like this. consumers want low prices, they are achieved through economies of scale, ergo monopoly is the best friend to the consumer. here we are one generation later, and it is proven effective again, we see the greatest concentration of power in this country and one century. in some cases, it is actually worse because the last time around they did not get their hand on to the farms and/or the retailers. if we view american history through the lens of our anti-monopoly law, we see for era is. first, the first half of the 19th century. with power and opportunity distributed vary widely through the system. extremely ega

when robert bork of the chicago school came up with this for income consumer welfare frame there were a lot them that can from the democrats and to be frank the clinton administration in terms of consolidation in the country was in most cases worse than what the reagan people did. but we should make no mistake about what mr. bork and his fellow chicago schoolers did with their welfare frame and this was to pass a essentially into the law the efficiency argument that has been favored by monopolists for centuries and what do i mean by that? john d. rockefeller, jpmorgan, the all basically had a single message, competition is wasteful. centralization of control in my hand, that is efficient. but consider how the logic of the consumer welfare argument plays out over time. the logic kind of goes like this, consumers want the prices, low prices are chief best as a scale, ergo monopoly is the best friend of the consumer so here we are a generation later and it's proven effective again we actually see the greatest concentration of power in the country in a century and some cases it is actuall

and your own friend, your good friend, former judge robert bork. he has called same sex marriage a judicial sin. and he said he can't even bear to talk to you about this case. now, if he should say, "come over and let's have a drink and let's talk about it," what would you do to justify the position you have taken that he calls defending a "judicial sin." >> i would like to talk to judge bork about this, a man who i have great respect for, and whose opinions i would listen to. and, i think the more that people understand that gay and lesbian individuals wish to have the same loving relationship that other individuals do. and that proposition 8 in california says their relationship isn't recognized by the state. the harm that that does to those loving individuals, who are our fellow citizens-- they are our doctors, our lawyers, our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers-- we are doing great harm by discriminating against people. and i think the more people hear what we have to say, what david and i have to say, the more people will understand that. t

robert bork raised this after his defeat.g the progressive era, there was a suggestion of majority or two-thirds vote overturning. so you do not have to buy the descriptive story to think that the judges have no role at all. çó>> let's think about ways we n change it. the court has interpreted the constitution, and now i have interpreted the constitution and i disagree with the court, and we are going to go on my interpretation, not the

robert bork raised this after his defeat.with. during the progressive era, there was a suggestion of majority or two-thirds vote overturning. so you do not have to buy the descriptive story to think that the judges have no role at all. çó>> let's think about ways we n change it. the court has interpreted the constitution, and now i have interpreted the constitution and i disagree with the court, and we are going to go on my interpretation, not the courts. >> it would be great to say you disagree, that would be a wonderful example of leadership, it is tricky, because the president might say i am going to refuse to execute a lot that is unconstitutional, even though the court has upheld that, because i have a different interpretation. say that he disagrees with a discriminatory law and the court says that segregation is fine, but a liberal president, the total hypothetical, will say i believe in that original condition of reconstruction for republicans and then refuse to offer segregation on the state's time. . . . >> and citiz

consider a run for the samet in virginia and was actively involved in -- he was close friends with robert borkn icon of the conservative republican elite in washington. the paula jones stuff was the source but because leader joe said that he was not a defeat comprised of fact ken starr had appeared on television and taken the position that the president could be sued civilly, a strong position and it turns out was prepared to write briefs for the supreme court case if it got to that or in the appellate courts. again i don't think ken starr was hiding out in his view was this was public anyone could have found it but it wasn't brought up and don't forget the whole point of the independent counsel, gregg, was to have someone beyond reproach, beyond suspicion of having any dog in the fight, and that was troublesome to the judge and he had notes scribbled on his pad of paper indicating he was extremely upset about that. >> host: that was generally on known, judge botts mur's reservations. should that have been disclosed to the public at the time? >> guest: he himself chose not to disclose it. he e

that were drowned in the '80s when an era -- nan era, in the halls of congress trying to do in judge borkyou have got to look at your history there. mr. eckert, i do have to comment on your four to one ratio about corporate giving to labor unions. i do not think your figures are right, but even if they work, labor is to political candidates more than 95% of their money to democrats. the corporate money today, and i think that was pointed out by ms. mitchell here, is evenly split now. you have corporations like pfizer -- you know, what is worse than pfizer, a pharmaceutical? i am kidding, you know, here they are giving more money to democrats than to republicans. this big deal about corporate money is this place. is about evenly divided. >> let me say one other thing about that. let's be real clear about this. the citizens united case had nothing to do with money to candidates. the ban on corporate contributions to candidates still is in place. what the court decision dealt with strictly was independent spending by corporations and labour unions about candidates. we have to keep them separ

he was actively involved, you know, he was very close friends with robert bork who was kind of an icon of the conservative republican elite in washington. the paula jones duff was the sore spot, because later, boxer said he was not apprised of the fact that ken starr had appeared on television and taken a position that the president could be sued civilly. a very strong position and it turns out was prepared to write briefs for the supreme court case if it got to that or india public course. again, i don't think ken starr was hiding that. and tuesday was this was public, anyone could have found it. but it wasn't brought up. to forget, the whole point of an independent counsel, gray, was to have someone who was beyond reproach, beyond suspicion of having any dog in the fight. and that was troublesome to judge buxner and he had notes scribbled on his pad of paper indicating he was extremely upset about that. >> host: that was generally unknown, buxner's reservations about this. should that have been disclosed to the public at the time? >> guest: well, he injured himself chose not to discl

he was actively involved, he was close friends with robert bork who was kind of an icon of the conservative republican elites in washington. the paula jones stuff was the source bought because later, oxner said he was not apprised of the fact that ken starr had appeared on television and taken the position that the president could be sued civilly, a very strong position and it turns out was prepared to write briefs for the supreme court case that the got to that or in the appellate courts. again. i don't think ken starr was hiding that and this was public and anyone could have done it but it wasn't brought up and don't forget the whole point of an independent counsel greg was to have someone who was beyond reproach, the on suspicion of having any dog in the fight, and that was troublesome to the judge and he had notes scribbled on his that of paper indicating he was extremely upset about that. >> host: that was generally unknown, his reservations. should that have been disclosed to the public at the time? >> guest: well, he himself chose not to disclose it. he ended up signing on to the cou

robert bork raised this after his defeat.u do not have to buy the descriptive story to think that the judges have no role at all. çó>> let's think about ways we n change it. the court has interpreted the constitution, and now i have interpreted the constitution and i disagree with the court, and we a and that it would be great for him to say he disagrees with the court interpretation. it would be a wonderful example of presidential leadership. it is tricky because the president might say, i will refuse to execute a law that i believe is a concept -- unconstitutional even though the supreme court has upheld it. say he disagreed with the discriminatory law and the court says that segregation is fine, but a liberal, progressive president -- this is hypothetical -- he says no, i believe in the original vision of reconstruction. that would be fine. the citizens united case, for the president to say the supreme court has said these funding limits are unconstitutional, i am going to insist on them anyway and prosecute or persons who

robert bork was soundly defeated for supreme court confirmation. he had 42 votes. now, to defeat at treaty you need 34 votes. in fact, you need to get a group of people together to get the treaty to the floor and then get 67 votes organized. it has been a major effort to find the sources of this issue. i think an even more egregious example is the convention on the rights of a child where now if somalia ratifies we will be the only country in the world that is not a party. a big part of the explanation is the supermajority rule. the united states has been slow to ratify human rights treaties. the genocide convention was first signed in 1949. we did not finally ratified until 1986. i think there are five different fronts. over time this does end up happening. i would submit my own position has not changed one bit. in the legal adviser's office i see colleagues of mine who share exactly my views. i think the question, this falls into the sound was describing. john and i are both lamenting. it is part of our constitutional process. you end up with a treaty that has to