host: 12 mark isms' we want to throw in. -- two more isms' we want to throw in. how does all of thi square with you? > guest: you have to go back to history and look at the people who were marxists back in the 19th century and they expected that history would end them victor on a platter. they thought capitalism would make workers more miserable and sooner or later the workers would rise up. karl marx was very unclear about this. he thought there would be -- it could be interpreted as an saying there would be an armed rebellion or he could take over by democratic means. you saw a bunch of people look for other ways of doing things. in russia, you saw lenin and his followers advocating that we needed to have the communist party to have a small wing of special people who would take over control of the state and bring russia into socialism and communism whether they liked it or not. that worked out unhappily for all involved as millions of people who died in the great terror. the upshot of that is that to saw stalin who was a brutal person taking some of those metho

host: 12 mark isms' we want to throw in. -- two more isms' we want to throw in.ow does all of thi square with you? > guest: you have to go back to history and look at the people who were marxists back in the 19th century and they expected that history would end them victor on a platter. they thought capitalism would make workers more miserable and sooner or later the workers would rise up. karl marx was very unclear about this. he thought there would be -- it could be interpreted as an saying there would be an armed rebellion or he could take over by democratic means. you saw a bunch of people look for other ways of doing things. in russia, you saw lenin and his followers advocating that we needed to have the communist party to have a small wing of special people who would take over control of the state and bring russia into socialism and communism whether they liked it or not. that worked out unhappily for all involved as millions of people who died in the great terror. the upshot of that is that to saw stalin who was a brutal person taking some of those methodo

they go to the president important -- forget bicameral ism.s wrong in terms of constitutional law. it shows the triumph of law over thoughtful policy. very benign, powerful concerned about getting control of bureaucracy, but that is the wrong way to do it. they had ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional, and that proved to be the rule articulated by the supreme court of the united states. >> how do your old rules factor into the decision making process? how much of those to dictate as positions taken on behalf of the united states. the solicitor general once said, i do not answer to the man who appointed me. on the other hand, robert bork, solicitor general in the nixon ford administration, said that he thought virtually every antitrust case that came to the office, he thought the anti- trust division was taking a division that was not as long, but ridiculous. he dutifully allowed the antitrust division, even though he personally thought they were not just wrong, but ridiculous. so how much did your own view and in to what to pre

they go to the president important -- forget bicameral ism.riumph of law over thoughtful policy. very benign, powerful concerned about getting control of bureaucracy, but that is the wrong way to do it. they had ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional, and that proved to be the rule articulated by the supreme court of the united states. >> how do your old rules factor into the decision making process? how much of those to dictate as positions taken on behalf of the united states. the solicitor general once said, i do not answer to the man who appointed me. on the other hand, robert bork, solicitor general in the nixon ford administration, said that he thought virtually every antitrust case that came to the office, he thought the anti- trust division was taking a division that was not as long, but ridiculous. he dutifully allowed the antitrust division, even though he personally thought they were not just wrong, but ridiculous. so how much did your own view and in to what to present to the supreme court? >> saying ridiculous is hyp

i have pushed the professional ism issue. only does the pilot have irresponsibility, but so does the carrier to not the people that are not fit to work. some of the awareness report on this session and some benefits. we have a very unfortunate incident not long ago. it was embarrassing. a pilot was observed by others and the crew to not be fit for polite but did the pilot was removed. the system does work. the meeting will be there. it will be available. >> he made a comment. let me comment on what you said. there are a number of people i see your family members of victims of the air crash. i am convinced that when all the dust settles on all of this, and their activities -- that their activities will end up saving lives. they are relentless in trying to make certain that nobody gets on an airplane in the future with a pilot and co-pilot -- one of whom has not flown in ice. one who flew across country to get to the duty station. one has been in a hotel room for the rest of the evening following an all-night flight. i am convi