but it went down sharply after bush v. gore.ng in which conservatives who had for long championed states rights suddenly discovered that the federal government had a crucial role in the 2000 election. but it was just a highly visible example. the court has been becoming more idealogically predictable, that is politically partisan, in recent years. judges appointed by republicans now almost always rule in ways that republicans want them to. and ditto for judges appointed by democrats. it's all part of the hyperpolarization of american life. but it's also partly because of the strange way that america's highest court is structured. it might surprise you to know that no other major democracy gives members of its highest court life tenure. most western countries have fixed terms or mandatory retirement ages. 68 in germany, 75 in britain, 75 in canada. germany gives its constitutional court judges a 12-year term, as do some other democracies. the american system of selection is also extraordinarily political. in many european countri

i was lucky enough to go to the first of the two oral arguments of the bush v gore. i ended up sitting next to the county judge of palm beach county. he had been on tv attempting to count the pregnant and hanging checks. he had never been to the u.s. supreme court, so i had a good time telling them about the symbolism in the courtroom. everybody who is anybody was there that day. i remember ted kennedy coming. host: there is that famous picture with the big magnifying glass. guest: that is the same man i got next to at the supreme court. host: running short on time. another segment we do not talk to obama about on c-span but would like you to -- do not talk much about on c-span, don would like you to talk about william mckinley. guest: the expert on that is a former editor of mine who taught for many years at the university of texas, lewis gould. keep it as an expert on the history of the early 20th century. -- keep is an expert on the history of the early 20th century and has books on mckinley and other presidents of the era. i know that mckinley had a wife who was

i'll let you. >> we know of course that resolving bush v. gore, i don't think this is just because legal reasoning is questionable, really damage the institutional credibility of the court. i'm aligned with many others when i think the court has continued along that path, but a lot of people will push to bush v. gore and say that's when they questioned the court as a neutral arbiter and side of the political institution. it's inconceivable to me, at least, that the justices would play an active role today, as seem to be the case then. i don't think we would gain anything by -- i don't think it would be necessarily preferable to have -- i don't want the court resolving elections, i guess. let me just say that. i want to court resolving elections, whether it's under the guise of neutrality, i don't want this court playing an active role in the resolution of elections. and i'm afraid they, will obviously president trump believe that they might. some of the justices seem eager to do so. so, i don't want them playing a role. i don't think that there i

so the origin of these arguments is the bush v gore decision. and as our elections become more contested and as i think we can anticipate, i mean, we hope this is not the but as we anticipate, almost inevitable litigation in federal court during president rule transitions. those arguments, again, we first saw in bush view gore are going to become they're going to be foregrounded. so that's a quick summary. i of kind of some of the lessons that we can take from transition. but there's plenty more to discuss, including the role of -- cheney, who, as you may recall, as you know, was first tasked with identifying a list of potential vice presidential candidates and then concluded that, well, you know, shaped the pool such that came off looking as the only real option bush wanted. john, the senator from missouri. but ultimately thought that, you know, cheney's the way to go. i guess i'll say one more thing. if we're thinking about this, a kind of social network thing. again, i'm trying to think how we could think about this from method logically. how

so the origin of these arguments is the bush v gore decision. and as our elections become more contested and as i think we can anticipate, i mean, we hope this is not the but as we anticipate, almost inevitable litigation in federal court during president rule transitions. those arguments, again, we first saw in bush view gore are going to become they're going to be foregrounded. so that's a quick summary. i of kind of some of the lessons that we can take from transition. but there's plenty more to discuss, including the role of -- cheney, who, as you may recall, as you know, was first tasked with identifying a list of potential vice presidential candidates and then concluded that, well, you know, shaped the pool such that came off looking as the only real option bush wanted. john, the senator from missouri. but ultimately thought that, you know, cheney's the way to go. i guess i'll say one more thing. if we're thinking about this, a kind of social network thing. again, i'm trying to think how we could think about this from method logically. how

and i think it's unfair to compare d, al gore, gore and bush situation to what happened in 2020 because in bush v gore. i mean we're talking about the constitutional interpretation of one state law. wherein the where, where and, you know, certification was still be in question and the supreme court of the united states ruled on that, went through the legal process. here you had people watching a very, very normal flow of an election in their states in several states. and then a 3 and suddenly 845150000 balance are dropped to 99 percent of which are for joe biden. people had questions. i think those questions are legitimate and should be asked, especially since for 4 years, half of america gets shouting streaming that hillary clinton was the right for president. and so i think it's unfair this, this 2 tiered system of justice, this t tiered system of who was allowed to say what and what you're allowed to say, that's not america. that's not who we are. and that's why these elections are important. you know, craig, you know, again, you know, it, we've all been looking at the poles and i'll even go f

and i think it's unfair to compare the al gore, gore and bush situation to what happened in 2020, because in bush v gore. i mean we're talking about the constitutional interpretation of one state law. wherein the work where and you know, certification was still be in question and the supreme court of the united states ruled on that. so went through the legal process. here you had people watching a very, very normal flow of an election in their states in several states. and then at 3 am suddenly 845150000 ballots are dropped to 99 percent of which are for joe biden. people had questions. i think those questions are legitimate and should be asked, especially since for 4 years have america get shouting and screaming that hillary clinton was the right, the president. and so i think it's unfair this, this 2 tiered system of justice, this 2 tiered system of who was allowed to say what and what you're allowed to say, that's not america. that's not who we are. and that's why these elections are for it, craig, you know, again, you know, it, we've all been looking at the poles and i'll even go further. i mea

they came out of the bush v. gorerace where nader was accused of being the spoiler and the target if you had ranked-choice voting, al gore would be president, and it worked to implement that at my college, the university of maryland, and many other colleges for their student body election. but we saw in new york with a ranked-choice voting, that it took a long time for the winner to be clear. how can we make sure you have a voting system like ranked-choice voting that is more democratic but not that it takes a long that people look at the system and blame the system for the delay? >> guest: check it out. i lost that race and i'm still here strongly advocating ranked-choice voting. so you know it must be good if the guy who didn't win with it is super into it. but 95% of new yorkers have ranked-choice vote easy to use. you're right, eric, that new york city board of elections is not exactly known for its stellar punctuality and other things, but the process is extraordinarily powerful and popular. the fact that a burea

. >> after the bush v. goreenough and they have a really efficient system down here and ron desantis made a better variable florida went from a purple kind of sometimes red state remember, obama won here, two and a blood red state and i can tell you one quick story that sums up exactly what happened last or years. one whole mask mandate vaccine mandate thing was going i went to this anti-mandate rally were people who didn't want to be forced to wear it when the covid thing started. one of the women at that rally, her name was amy prichard, she came up to me and she said i've had enough of this, i'm not going to be forced to do this, i'm really sorry and i'm going to make a difference. she ran for school board. she said you get behind me. she won. she defeated an incumbent who had been in office forever with massive name i.d. by a sliver of the vote. keep in mind, in a primary where ron desantis was not at the top of the ballot come he didn't have a competitor so there was no reason for republicans really en mass

and nationally known political law advocate representing participants in the political process, bush v. gore? [laughing] yeah. so that would be the clinical process. michael ginsburg is interning in dash of an attorney and nationals could he law, he also is a chairman and relevant for these purposes the 11th 11th congressional district committee of the republican party of virginia and the republican party of virginia's executive committee. he was very involved in the nomination process in the last gubernatorial election in virginia which had some prominent consequences. and finally elaine kamarck is a senior fellow and the government studies program as well as director of the center for effective public management at the brookings institution. she's an author of primary politics, everything you need know about how america nominated presidential candidates. so she's going to be -- she is everything. she has also been a lecturer at public policies at harvard school of government and has been actively involved in four presidential campaigns and ten nominating conventions. so that would be in th

i was lucky enough to go to the first of the two oral arguments of the bush v gore.nded up sitting next to the county judge of palm beach county. he had been on tv attempting to count the pregnant and hanging checks. he had never been to the u.s. supreme court, so i had a good time telling them about the symbolism in the courtroom. everybody who is anybody was there that day. i remember ted kennedy coming. host: there is that famous picture with the big magnifying glass. guest: that is the same man i got next to at the supreme court. host: running short on time. another segment we do not talk to obama about on c-span but would like you to -- do not talk much about on c-span, don would like you to talk about william mckinley. guest: the expert on that is a former editor of mine who taught for many years at the university of texas, lewis gould. keep it as an expert on the history of the early 20th century. -- keep is an expert on the history of the early 20th century and has books on mckinley and other presidents of the era. i know that mckinley had a wife who was quit

and complain that the public doesn't like them as much as they did in 2000 which on the heels of bush v gore approved of the court and now they're down to 28%. do you see any recovery of their reputation without reforming either of these two buckets? >> no. i think they need to be serious about reform. pretending that nothing is going on there is not working for them. they now face a choice that many of them wish they didn't have to face. they have to choose their master. they have to choose whether they'll serve the donor who put them on the court or serve the path of justice and call balls and strikes for real and honor precedent and follow originalism wherever it leads, even if it leads away from corporate interference and dark money. this is going to be an epic choice for them. it's the future integrity and legitimacy of the court will depend on in large measure. >> you look at clarence thomas and his wife ginni thomas and her admitted participate in the fake elector scheme. spouses can do whatever they want i suppose. the problem and the stenchy part of it seems to be justice thomas' vo

i mean, you know -- beginning at least with bush v. gore, if not straw v. reno and miller v. johnson and culminating in miller-dobbs, i don't think anybody in my caucus has any faith in this supreme court and i think its legitimacy is at an all-time low with a majority of americans and certainly the vast majority of people in my caucus. so i think people have always been open to the question of, well, if they strike something down on, you know, by mangling statutory interpretation should we go back and rewrite it to make it clear what we mean? are we better off leaving well enough alone? people may be open to that argument but i don't think anybody ever defers to the, you know, to the roberts court and to, you know, kavanaugh and these people as if, you know, they somehow are a fountain of moral or constitutional authority. because we don't accept it. and i guess we de-centered the court. you know. we believe that we've been standing up for the constitution. when we impeached donald trump we were standing up for the constitutional order and for the bill of rights and for the

they claim unsubstantiated voter fraud and when we lose, like bush v. goreccept it. when republicans lose elections it is because democrats steal it, and when they win it is fair and square. this is insanity. host: dan in new jersey, republican, your top concerns or issues. caller: imagine that somebody goes through medical school and they are shown comic books medicine. people are getting so activated about the election not because of anything concrete but because of this incredible mood of hatefulness and the other guy is going to screw things up. host: dan, what is the top issue for you? caller: the top issue for me personally is i voted early in the envelope had to have my signature on it with my ballot inside. i do not think you can call that privacy. i accepted that. i am not ashamed of my vote but most importantly is all these ancillary issues that have nothing to do with what you're going into the voting booth to do. people do not want to stick to the hard issues. they get all worked up and emotionally involved. it is like new year's eve when you get