during the next hour you hear from former supreme court justice john paul stevens, harvard law professor laurence tribe, and georgetown law professor randy barnett. you can watch all of the programs featured here in their entirety on our website, booktv.org. we begin with harvard law professor laurence tribe, author of "uncertain justice: the roberts court and the constitution." professor tribe argues while the roberts court is widely portrayed as being ideologically split, producing one, 5-4 decision after another, there are other cases which the liberals and conservatives on the court find common ground. >> one of the researc researches working with medicine, to the kid named matt went home to new hampshire in late spring and spent some time talking with his high school music teacher. she knew that he went to harvard law school but did know that he was working with me, and she kind of unloaded on him about our great disillusionment with the supreme court. she'd been looking at the headlines about how partisan the divisions seem to be, a lot of people whose journalism she respects, peop

during the next hour, you'll hear from former supreme court justice john paul stevens, harvard law professor lawrence tribe and georgetown law professor randy bar net. you can -- barnett. you can watch all of the programs featured here in their entirety on our web site, booktv.org. we begin with harvard law professor lawrence tribe, author of "uncertain justice: the roberts court and the constitution." here professor tribe argues that while the roberts court is widely portrayed as being ideologically split, producing one 5-4 decision after another, there are many less publicized cases in which the liberals and conservatives on the court find common ground. >> one of the research assistants working with me this summer, a terrific kid named max, went them to -- went home to new hampshire in late spring and spent some time talking with his high school music teacher. she knew that he went to harvard law school but didn't know that he was working with me, and she kind of unloaded on him about her great disillusionment with the supreme court. she'd been looking at the headlines about how partisan

let's listen to what john paul stevens said about this very point. >> my decision was not made for anyolitical reason whatsoever. it was my person about my own health. >> do you think it's something that justices should take into account? >> i think so. i think it's an appropriate thing to think about your successor. you're interested in the job and in the kind of work that's done. you have to have an interest in who is going to fill your shoes. >> so if justice ginsburg came to you and asked your advice? >> i would say she doesn't need my advice, she really doesn't. >> very wise. >> it's interesting, because she did ask my advice when she became the senior associate justice. basically i gave her that same answer. >> they're a lot more chatty when they retire. what do you think is -- if you see it clearly, what do you think is the right strategic decision for justice ginsburg to make at this point? >> i think it's so hard, lawrence. because in your intro when you talked about the colossal screw-up of lbj, what we forget is the power none of us have is clairvoyan clairvoyance. i don't t

. >> we saw john paul stevens, the supreme court and his involvement with baseball. we watched fdr and the cermak connection. you had a dinner back in early 2001 at the white house with george bush. >> i did it every year of his presidency. they would come in and talk baseball. of course the president who knew his baseball had a wonderful time. >> you keep notes of that? >> probably should have. never wrote about it at all. >> what were the evenings like? >> talking baseball. the president knew who to ask and what was news in baseball. i remember talking about the last all-star game. i asked the president if he knew who got the winning hit. he did, it was his friend julio franco. bush knew baseball. >> small-group? >> sometimes 10, sometimes 20. no more than 20. >> was this off-season? >> yes, so guys could,. >> do you have a memory of any particular night? >> just the president knowing julio franco got the winning hit. i think it was the 1989 all-star game. >> which president was the biggest baseball fan? >> probably william howard taft. baseball was invented by abn

as former justice john paul stevens has said, money is property. it is not speech. speech, and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. the campaigns meaning -- campaign spending issues were regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by equating money with speech, the buckley court sanctioned a system that allows the very wealthy, and now corporations, to distort our political process and the very meaning of the first amendment. no one has a2 -- first amendment right to drown out other people' speech. the supreme court stated this clearly. cooper1949 in kovacs the -- v. cooper. trentonin the city of was blaring its message with a sound truck going down every street. in response, the city passed an ordinance saying the sound trucks can only go down every 3rd street. the supreme court upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. it found that public streets served other public purposes that needed to be protected and as justice jackson wrote

as former justice john paul stevens has said, money is property. it is not speech. money amplifies speech, and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. the campaign spending issues were regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by equating money with speech, the buckley court sanctioned a system that allows the very wealthy, and now corporations, to distort our political process and the very meaning of the first amendment. point number 2 -- no one has a first amendment right to drown out other people' speech. the supreme court stated this clearly. in the 1949 in kovacs v. cooper. a union in the city of trenton was blaring its message with a sound truck going down every street. in response, the city passed an ordinance saying the sound trucks can only go down every 3rd street. the supreme court upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. it found that public streets served other public purposes that needed to be protected and as justice j

don't know well mcdowell was one of them i think the one who regrets it most now is judge of the john paul stevens who has resisted all of you. yes and the problem is the one i think who wrote the. majority report of the verdict in the mclusky case that mentioned the internet was the one that he said he would change if he. were probably that's what i was thinking. we are. regularly we the united states are regularly. chastised ridiculed. or or just compassionately begged to wake up by our allies in the developed world you know in europe and central and south america. in asia and we still align ourselves with you know a very small number of countries the most the majority of state sponsored executions as of two thousand and ten have taken place in yemen iran north korea china and the united states you've been doing this for several decades do you see a sea change teams do you are you noticing that america is becoming more progressive with regard to the death penalty the way that we have with regard to for example gay rights or you know marijuana to criminalization or many of the other issues that y

states court of appeals in the district of columbia circuit and then later clerked for justice john paul stevens of the supreme court of the united states between 1992 and 1993. she became an associate professor at the university of pennsylvania law school. gipping in 2007 while she was still in private practice, she codirected the law school's supreme court and was a visiting professor at georgetown university law center. in 2009, ms. harris was named the executive director of the supreme court institute at georgetown serving as executive director until 2010. ms. harris then joined the justice department office of legal policy where she served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general until returning to georgetown in 2012. ms. harris is currently a visiting professor at georgetown university law center and a senior advisor to the supreme court institute. it is not surprising that the american bar association has given her the highest rating, as unanimously well-qualified for this appointment. she has appeared as counsel or cocounsel in briefs in approximately 100 cases before the feder

but as former supreme court justice john paul stevens has said, money is property.it is not speech. money in fact amplifies speech. and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. the campaign spending limits at issue in buckley were reasonable regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by the quaking money with speech, the buckley court sanctioned a system which allows the very wealthy, and now corporations, to distort our political process and the very meaning of the first amendment. point number two, no one has a first amendment right to drown out other people's speech. the supreme court stated this clearly in 1949 case in kovacs versus cooper. in kovacs, a union in the city of john bonifaz is blaring its message with a sound truck going down every street. in response the city passed an ordinance requiring that sound trucks can only go down every third street. the supreme court upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. it found that pub

she's clerked for justice john paul stevens of the supreme court of the united states. she's been a professor at the university of pennsylvania law school, codirector of harvard law school's supreme court and appellate practice clinic, visiting professor at georgetown university law center. she's -- she was in the justice department office of legal policy. but at georgetown, she has developed the georgetown university law center, her clinic is what prepares lawyers for their arguments before the supreme court of the united states. in other words, she is basically the person who teaches and gives practical experience for those who have to appear before the highest court in this land. it's interesting, she's dedicated about half of her time to civil indicates, abou cases,o criminal cases. so she is well-versed on the responsibilities of our appellate court. so i don't think we could have found a more qualified person to fill this extremely important position on the fourth circuit. i also want my colleagues to know that she understands the responsibilities of a lawyer and