so they decided the griswold case. so it's mentioned in the court, because justice douglas said we'll not take the road, it was urged on us to take the lochner -- so he mentions lochner. where it really comes to play is in gerald gunther's book. it was published in 1970 puts lochner in the case book and pairs it with griswold as a way of questioning what -- what the court is up to is any different than what it used to do then in 1975, comes the new edition of gunther's case book. comes out in 1975. and he -- and roe has decide is roe vs. wade is decided. so gunthor expands it into the whole chapter of the book and it starts with griswold, then -- starts with lochner, then goes through griswold and then roe. he calls this the lochner era. before 1970, there was only one reference. in 1969 to anybody referring to it as a lochner era. he has a big thing about -- i think the title of the chapter was substantive due process, rise, decline and rerival. rise, decline with lochner and revival with griswold. i happened to be a

a lot of people liked griswold. when you put lochner up against it and you say well, look what they're doing is the same thing as lochner, i think this cause people to rethink lochner. even though lochner was still objectionable it wouldn't for the same reasons. when larry accomplishing the last edition of his treaties in 1978 he has a whole chapter on lochner. he says the problem with lochner was not that they got the role of judges wrong, they were protecting the wrong right, freedom of contract was not a right that they should be protecting. okay, so now lochner is, it use to be very very bad and now it's only very bad. use to be the wrong right and the wrong role and now it's the right role but the wrong rightism and here's the last par of my story, i will close with one little anecdote that i have personal knowledge of. one of my earliest art calls on constitutional law was telling the story on how it was thanks to gunther and his case book that lochner was getting a better reputation. and so, i credited gunthe

what does griswold do? protects the rights of privacy to use, not only use, but to possess, not only topossess but sell contraceptives. what gave the court the power to validate the connecticut law, topossess and use contraceptives? and the answer justice douglas gave, a good yale man, the answer that justice douglas gave was that it was the right of privacy and he relied on lochner-era cases and pierce society of sisters in making that a case. by the lochner -- they themselves relied on the lochner case. these are the cases he relied on. at some point, the challenge was raised to him, doesn't that give rise to this economic liberty case, like the lochner thing? and at first with actually during oral argument, the court was not sure what the lochner case. they thought it had to do with the size of bread. wasn't that the case of bread and what size bread should be and weren't sure what the lochner case was. turns out that was -- there was a case like that but it wasn't lochner. so they decided the griswold c

after his death his first review was written by griswold who could not stand edgar allan poe. paul made front of him, griswold was horribly offended but was simmering just beneath the surface waiting for poe to die. once he died he wrote an obituary that startled and he went on to betray him as a man man no moral evil despicable person and his biography he pretrade him as a hopeless drunk. but post friends and family came just a fence and said this is not true this is not the pole that we know. and even as an enemy said the rumors of this use is just a baseless slander. over here we have a letter written by one of jutland's good friends. he recounts a very strange episode impose life in the last summer in 1849 poe was passing through philadelphia and showed up at his house terrified that people are trying to kill him. he wanted him to cut off his mustache so nobody would recognize him. later he said it was just a hallucination it wasn't real and they wrote about the account and somewhere they said wrote was he just drunk or on drugs and this is his response that he did not app

wade, is rooted in griswold, griswold said the right to privacy pertained to things like contraceptivesthis is a tremendous stretch, to go from i have the right to buy contraceptives to kill an innocent defenseless child. the question for melissa and the gentleman, with all due respect, yes or no, to you consider the baby in a mother's wo human beingmb a? -- mother's womb a human being? if we know life begins at conception or before birth, we have to revisit this. host: i'm going to let you go at that point because we have little time and lots of questions on the line. melissa: to make clear the bridge between griswold and roe, in between in 1972, third is another case before the court dealing with contraception. there the court is considering whether massachusetts law that prohibits the use of contraception's to married people is constitutional and the court in an opinion by brennan writes that the right of individuals to have a child is the right of the individual. , what is leftayt up to individuals? in roe, it seems like a leap from contraception in griswold. it is that language tha

wade, is rooted in griswold, griswold said the right to privacy pertained to things like contraceptives. isn't it a tremendous stretch to go from, i have the right to buy contraceptives do i have the right to killed a defenseless child? andthe question for melissa the gentleman, with all due respect, yes or no, do you consider the baby in the --her's won't a human being in the mother's womb a human being? if life begins at conception before birth, we have to revisit this. host: i will let you go with that point because we have little time and lots of questions on the line. melissa: so, to make clear the bridge between griswold and roe come in between in 1972, year before the court during a contraceptives, the court is theidering whether or not use of contraceptives to unmarried people is constitutional. and the court- writes that the right of the individual to decide whether or child, is the right of the individual. the body of two individuals? it is the language that speaks of a fundamental right to determine whether or not to bear a child that furnishes the underpinnings for roe. that

dean griswold was then solicitor general. he was to make a speech about great advocates before the court. and by 1985, he realizes that he can't have a list that's all men. so after he finishes with thurgood marshall, the next person he mentions is ruth bader ginsberg. >> rose: yes. when i went through my nomination process, i was told that everyone should have a marty ginsburg as a muse. ( laughter ) he apparently came into the preparation session with folders, including all of ruth's speeches, her entire schedule for her entire life, and binders filled with tax information. >> well, that part, the press reported inaccurately because they said the reason that ginsburg had no problem with the taxes or the baby sitter is because marty was a tax lawyer. ( laughter ) but, in our home, ou personal life, i did all the taxes. ( laughter ) ( applause ) >> rose: yes, and des who did all the cooking? >> yes, yes. >> rose: marty. all the president's men descended on my apartment to go through my papers, marty made a delicious lunch eve

then i got another letter at another letter, and finally i decided i would go into dean griswold, the former dean of harvard law school at the solicitor general and i told him the whole story. the next day, to his credit, dean griswold convened the parole board in the solicitor general's office. [laughing] and in a flash they had already denied parole to magee. in a flash they changed their mind and ordered him released, released on june 1. and on june 1 of 1972 i received this letter -- by the way, griswold swore me to secrecy and i never, i never told judge friendly what had happened. it says dear ray, we received the word yesterday from the american civil liberties union that the parole board had reconsidered its action and that granted magee parole effective today. this contributes greatly to my peace of mind. if you had a hand in this, i'm grateful. and then on june 7, mickey appeared in the court, in this courtroom, and david duerson found magee and interviewed him. magee tells this story that friendly was presiding and you look down at magee and he said, you are free to go. you

and it finally in 1963, in this famous case of griswold v. connecticut, gets legalized.nd it makes sex something that can be enjoyed for pleasure without a significant percentage of the risk of pregnancy. and for women, who bore the indisputable larger costs for these unintended pregnancies, this is freeing. it's liberating. my mom, who came of age in this period, she talks about how the pill came along and it just opened up the possibilities for women. which i found gross to hear my mom talking about this. but that's how important it was. but of course freedom is not just people pushing from the left, it's people pushing from the right. and what you see in the 1960s is a resurgence of conservatism. a resurgence of the conservative movement. starts by barry goldwater and william f. buckley here in the '50s and '60s. and then you know these two probably more famous, ronald reagan and richard nixon. they want freedom from the great society. freedom from the bureaucracies. freedom from the tax burdens. right? and after this clash, remember the song i started with? the battl

joining them on stage, alice son griswold, a reporter where she covers the economy, another sharing economy and strata conflicts. she comes from slate magazine where she wrote about business and economics for in the money box column. so we have copies of erik and andy's book for sale. following the conversation and they will stick around and autograph them for you. without further adieu, andrew mcafee and erik brynjolfsson, and alice son. >> thank you for coming. tell us bat your book. >> we'll dive right. in you start. >> the book, called my been, platform, crowd ," available for sale, and people drive down the resale value of it by signing it for you arewards. this is about three great rebounds. mind and machine, product and platform, core and crowd. we couldn't fit all the words on the cover so just used the last three and that's the direction that the world is changing right now. not all the way, but partway from decisionmaking, moving more from human minds toward machines, both data driven decisionmaking and artificial intelligence, moving from product towards platforms like the five m

arthur goldberg and he is very circumspect about his work there but he con trib y-- contributede griswold versus connecticut case that recognized the right of marital privacy. and he worked in the anti-trust division of the department of justice and taught at harvard in the law school and the kennedy school of government. he was chief counsel to the senate judish ay from 1978 to 1980. and he was nominated by president carter to the first circuit nine days after carter lost the 1980 election. he so impressed senators on both sides of the aisle for his work on the committee that he was confirmed 80-10. he then served for 14 years and the circuit the last four years as chief judge when he was nominated to replace justic blackmon in 1994 and he assumed the oath of office in august of 1994, so we're coming up on the 22nd anniversary. so if you'll all please join me in giving a welcome to our lecturer whom we're very lucky to have this year. thank you, justice. [ applause ] >> thank you, very nice introduction. and this is a formidable group. i mean, i'm talking a little bit about history, but

work there, but he does acknowledge he contributed to the first draft of the ginsburg, excuse me, griswold v. connecticut case. after clerking for justice goldberg, he work in the antitrust division of the department of justice. he taught at harvard and the law school and kennedy school of government. he was chief counsel to the senate judiciary counsel from 1978 to 1980 and nominated by president cart toer to the firs circuit nine days after president carter lost the election. he impressed senators on both sides of the aisle for his work on the judiciary committee he was confirmed 80-10. he then served for 14 years on a first circuit the last four years as chief judge when he was nominated to replace justice blackman in 1994 and he assumed the oath of office in august of 1994. so we're coming up on the 22nd anniversary. so if you'll all please join me in giving a welcome to our lecturer whom we are very lucky to have this year. thank you, justice. [ applause ] >> thank you. very nice introduction. this is a formidable group. this is quite a great group, but i was told by a historian who s

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 of pre-s past. and the first is jef

and griswold v. connecticut and roe v. wade and in 1992 in one of the planned parenthood cases and there were liberals citing the dissent and here's an example of the shifting politics. >> everything flipped as the court flipped. i actually think the liberals, being in favor of judicial activism -- which nixon ran on the idea that he was going to appoint judges that they're going to follow the constitution. it was the liberals that were the activists. i think that's the anomaly. by and large, conservatives have been the activists over time. i think your term was a post-new deal mentality. that's turned around a little bit. i think it is turning around a little bit so that you have the same time and you have chief justice roberts complaining about the liberals and justice ginsburg talking in the national federation of business about the conservative and elements of lochner, one talking about rober roberts and one is talking about the court injecting into the decision of economic policy and that would be ginsburg. that's whe

. >> we have several major citations of the lachner case, in 1908 muller versus oregon, 1965, griswold versus connecticut. 1973 in roe versus wade and then in 1992 in one of the planned parenthood cases. but in the last cases, they were -- it was liberals and they were citing the descents, here's an example of the shifting politics. >> the court flipped. i think the liberals being in favor of judicial activist. richard nixon ran on the idea he's going to appoint judges that are going to follow the constitution, i think that's the anomaly. the conservative side of the political docket, i think your term was a post new deal mentality many i think that's turn willing around a little bit now. >> i hope it is. >> i don't know whether i hope it is or not, but i think it is turning around a little bit. you have the same time -- you have chief justice roberts complaining about the liberals being lachnerizing. you have justice ginsburg talking about the conservatives lachnerizing. they're talking about the two different elements of lachner, one's talking about the idea of the court interjecting

children's hospital of dc. 1965, a very important case, griswold versus connecticut. and then again in 1992 in one of planned parenthood cases. in one of the last cases it was liberals and they were citing dissent. so here's an example of the shifting politics. >> as the court flipped, i actually think that the liberals being in favor of judicial activism, which richard nixon ran on the idea he's going to appoint judges that are going to follow the constitution -- the conservatives have been the activists. i think the conservative side of the political docket and the liberal side of the political docket, i think your terms was the post new deal -- i think that's turning around a little bit. >> i hope it is. that's what i'm trying to see happening. >> i think it is turning around a little bit. and also at the same time in obergefell you have chief justice roberts complaining about the liberals. you have justice ginsburg talking about the conservatives lochnerising. one is talking about judicial activism. and one is talking about the idea of the court interjecting itsel

there was a case called griswold versus connecticut where he had justice douglas create the right to privacy out of whole cloth out of think the first, the third, the fourth and the fifth and ninth amendments to the constitution. and in roev. wade you had the privacy right articulated more clearly in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. that's where we sort of see the court returning for this generalized right to privacy. so it's in the 14th amendment cue process clause, in fact the liberty component of the due process clause rather than the fourth amendment. >> the only slight modification i would make of that is i think that the court has recognized particularly the the through corporation is that there is at the core of the fourth amendment, a concern for privacy. >> especially in your home. >> robert is in new york city, hey, robert. >> hello, hi. while i've been on hold, covered the issue that i wanted to ask about and inquire further about. that to distinguish that in the mapp case, it was the american civil liberties union and particularly bernie berkman who did the y