justice elena kagan: he brought a sense of humor to almost everything he did. he teased people, he ribbed people. would make you laugh, make you cry, make you do it allat the same time. he was the most extraordinary storyteller i've ever heard. roger wilkins: and the shambling kind of folksy thing that marshall did, very shrewd. you didn't realize the brilliance and the flexibility that he brought to bear with the way he used language and the way he used his own body. and it worked. narrator: by the late 1930s marshall was traveling 30.000 miles a year, often alone and with little money. sometimes he would visit 2 or 3 different cities in a single day. and when he was home, he and buster made the best of their time together (music) ♪ harlem is harmony, love is a melody, harlem is harmony, ♪ ♪harlem is harmony, harlem is harmony, harlem is harmony. ♪ jose anderson: marshall took advantage of the culture of harlem. boxing matches with joe louis and dinners and music. narrator: thurgood and buster arrived as the harlem renaissance was coming to a close, but the ef

he spends new year's eve with ruth bader ginsburg and recently with elena kagan. when i have conversations with them so they pay attention when he speaks just like they pay attention to a lot of the regulars out there and and he has been on sixtysomething arguments before the justices. so it's fascinating to watch him and watch how the justices respond. they respond especially to many of the former solicitors general just like seth rocks man who was the solicitor general for bill clinton and ted olson was this lesser general for george w. bush. >> host: does he play to the justices? >> guest: they all do to justice kennedy who was all -- usually in the swing vote position or whether it's on something like same-sex marriage that he is doing now or if it's on a pension case. these lawyers know who they need to convince. >> host: how often and you talk a little bit about this in breaking in, how often can the justices have personal relationships with lawyers had argued in front of them? >> guest: they are all appointed for life but they all all had history before the

you know what i mean. >> i do justice kagan. >> okay. so i don't think that that could possibly be right because then you would be saying that it would be a different statute if instead of just saying here an employer can't make unavailable but instead it said an employer can't act in a way that makes unavailable. that would make it completely parallel to the title 7 and the adea statutes and those two things just can't mean the same thing. i mean all it's doing is to take out a few words but it's saying the exact same thing which is either way the employer can't make unavail snoobl justice kagan, i don't think it's saying the same thing and under smith it can't be saying the same thing because section 4 a-1 the court unanimously realized it didn't have the phrase that appeared in 4 a 2 which was checking in any way to deprive or tend to deprive or adversely affect. without that result-based language you can't have that. that's what ricci said. >> but the think that's different in this statute is to make unavailable which focuses on an e

. >> i am not sure i understand why you are fighting elena kagan's question. is it the issue, the reason they acted? they refuse to hire someone because they had the 1 present belief that they had a religious part move upon, religious belief that they wouldn't accommodate. >> don't intend to fight elena kagan's hypothetical. is really quite easy. the reason i'm trying to separate the two is i think the situation here is the easy case. i will get to the hard case and why i am fighting. you are confusing the enormously. tell me what it is you want? you say the understands -- that doesn't do anything for me. understands, nose, believes suspects, what other firms do you need? detests the courts of appeals adopted for two decades which is the test that we ask this court to adopt is the employer needs sufficient information from any source about the employe, the applicant's religious needs that to permit the employer to understand the existence -- the courts of appeals have been -- >> i don't care what they did. that makes no sense to me. the reason it makes sense i

elena kagan was the boss to several of the men and women who argued before the court now when she herself was solicitor general. there are plenty of professional and personal interactions. >> host: what is your next book? >> guest: i don't know what i'm going to do one. so much fun. you have an idea of? this is more of a political history than a biography and i'm kind of running out of the ones with great person will story so i've got to think long and hard. another reason you have to think long and hard as you spend so much time doing it that it pulls you away from your family and your day job. he wants to choose wisely. >> host: breaking in is the name of joan biskupic's most recent book, the rise of sonia saw the mayor and the politics of justice. >> host: you are watching booktv on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction books about airs every weekend. we are on location at johns hopkins university in baltimore talking with professors who are authors and joining us now is andrew cherlin. professor cherlin would you do at the university? >> guest: i'm a professor of sociology. i teach courses

president obama has chosen sonya sotomayor and elena kagan.not every it race of the supreme court hears brown versus board, rowe versus wade. not every court hears cases that are household names. but the supreme court of the united states has breathtaking power on a myriad of issues. nothing else in government is like it. even just right now we're awaiting oral arguments in the next few months on cases that might eliminate the whole of obama care in one fell swoop. millions of people losing their health insurance all at once. they will hear those and rule in the next few months. we're also waiting for a case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. that is all just in the next few months. the supreme court is always really important, and a president's choices around who they would put on the supreme court are among the most important criteria that we have when it comes to choosing a president. we know that jeb bush would have liked peter t. faye for the supreme court. okay. but our supreme court right now has on it's plate an unusuall

[laughter] >> i do, justice kagan. >> but i don't think that could possibly be right. then you say that it would be a different statute. instead of just saying an employer can't make unavailable instead it said an employer can't act in a way that makes unavailable, that would make it completely parallel to the title vii and the adea statutes. those two things just can't mean the same thing. all that's doing is to take out a few words. it is saying the exact same thing, either way an employer can't make unavailable. >> i don't think it is saying the same thing. section 4-a-1, the court unanimously recognized, didn't give disparate impact liability. it didn't have, checking to see if it would adversely affect. without that results-based language, you can't have disparate impact liability. >> the thing that is different in this statute is the "make unavailable," whciich focuses on the effect. it just doesn't a little more economically. the effects based nature is still the same. >> it doesn't focus on the effect. what smith said was prohibited the act of eliminating. smit

president obama so far has chosen sonia sotomayor and alaina kagan. supreme court nominations are among the most important things that any president does ever. and not every iteration of the supreme court hears brown versus board of education or bush v. gore for that matter or roev. wade. not every iteration of the court hears cases that become household names and that change the world drastically and forever. but the scattered showers of the united states has breath taking power. on a mereadeyrad of issues. we're awaiting cases that might elimination the whole of obamacare in one fell swoop. millions of people losing their health insurance at once they could do that. we're awaiting another case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide or not. we're waiting another case that could ban the way that states kill their prisoners now by lethal injection. that's all in the next few months. the supreme court is really important. and a president's choices around who they would put on the supreme court are among the most important criteria we have when

>> your honor i don't intend to fight justice kagan's hypothetical. the fact of this case is quite easy but the reason i'm trying to separate the two is because i think the situation here and i will get to why the hard case implied i am fighting justice kagan's hypothetical. >> you are confusing me enormously. will you tell us what it is you want? you said understands and that doesn't do anything for me. understands, nose, believes, suspects? what other verbs do you need? >> the test of the courts of appeals have adopted for more than two decades which is a test we asked this court to adopt is that the employer needs sufficient information for any source about the employee about the applicant's religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence -- >> that is to test the courts of appeals has -- but that doesn't make sense to me. >> the reason i think it makes sense in this case because it that sufficient knowledge for you to act upon it remember the critical point here for us is if the employer had not assumed that this was religious h

he actually spends new year's eve with justice right baiter ginsburg, justice scalia and elana kagan. they know him and will often refer to him by the first name. so the pay attention when he speaks like they pay attention to the regulars up there, and he has certainly -- let's see. he's been on 60 something arguments before the justices. he has some different quirks of which watches he wears what he argues, howl he does it. it's fascinating to watch him and watch hough the justices respond -- watch how the justices respond. they responsibility especially to many of the former solicitors general, just like seth waxman who was the solicitor general for bill clinton, and ted olson was she solicitor general for george w. bush. >> does he play to the justices? >> well, they all know to argue to justice kennedy. he is awesome in the swing vote position. or they know which justice might be the swing vote in their particular case. whether it's on something like same-sex marriage, that he is doing now or if it's on a pension case. these lawyers know who they need to convince. >> how o. -- you

. >> i'm not sure that i understand why you are fighting the question of justice elena kagan. >> theyccommodate. >> i don't intend to separate us. but the reason that i tried to separate the two is because the situation here is easy. i will get to the hard case and why i am fighting this. >> would you tell me what it is you want? >> that doesn't do anything for me. he understands knows and believes and what other verbs do you need? this is the test that they ask us to adopt that the employer needs sufficient information from any source about the applicants religious need to permit the employer to understand the existence. >> that doesn't make any sense to me. >> the reason i think it makes sense in this case is because if that sufficient knowledge for you to actually act upon it if the critical point here -- if the employer had not assumed that this was religious they would not have hired her. the default rule is higher than she -- the person responsible for hiring, i think that she is wearing his headscarf for religious reasons and that is why i am checking it out with you. the answe

kennedy: he's so amazing, he whispered to supreme court then nominee elaina kagan be real, whose tielike better? and christopher koonz daughter, to his daughter he whispered. add me on snapchat. >> she's like 14. that vine was genuinely disturbing to watch. he kept creeping in closer and closer, trying to kiss her, she was pulling away. is this really happening? and he did the same to joni ernst daughter. he was handsy with everyone. the new secretary of defense's wife is a grown woman and not a 'tween. kennedy: and probably packing a chinese death star, i'm guessing, she's got a device where she could have eviscerated his man satchel if she needed to. she's leaning away like -- >> he's the vice president, he has secret service agents supposed to be protecting him. instead they are supposed to protect the woman he's around. at least we had just the blue dress when you turn bill on. now i'm worried, hair turns joe biden on. >> i don't think biden is having affairs with people. i don't think he's bill clinton in that way. behavior, the conduct is inappropriate and weird to look at. ken

i have justice kagan on the left, justice sotomayor on my right. and if you can't come if you watched proceedings, it's really quite a show. [laughter] my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they very much a part of the colloquy. yes, people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? and my answer is when there are nine. [applause] [laughter] some people are taken aback. but remember for most of our countries history, there were only men on the high court bench. >> now, i want to open the floor for questions, but just one last question. as you are about to all of our since you are about to start their legal career and you betcha such an extraordinary career, is there one or two pieces of advice villages like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i've done in the law. it's a great profession but i will say that -- [inaudible] i don't think i would have had nearly the satisfaction that i have.

. >> you didn't even know want to know where my elena kagan cat too tattoo is. you can watch more of the interview tonight. >>> >> new players entering the fray in the fight against isis. what does it mean for u.s. involvement? one senator at the heart of this debate weighs in next. ring ring! progresso! i can't believe i'm eating bacon and rich creamy cheese before my sister's wedding well it's only 100 calories, so you'll be ready for that dress uh-huh... you don't love the dress? i love my sister... 40 flavors. 100 calories or less. you just got a big bump in miles. so this is a great opportunity for an upgrade. sound good? great. because you're not you you're a whole airline... and it's not a ticket you're upgrading it's your entire operations, from domestic to international... which means you need help from a whole team of advisors. from workforce strategies to tech solutions and a thousand other things. so you call pwc. the right people to get the extraordinary done. ♪ ♪ good job! still running in the morning? yeah. getting your vegetables every day? when

we thought with justice kagan and sotomayor before they took the bench, they would be interested.arent. they give you their opinions their dissent, and they give you their thinking but they don't seem to be locking in on the idea. >> we have this impression that they're so impenetrable. it would be interesting to see. >>> other headlines today, a bill approving a keystone pipeline gets a ceremonial signing but it won't get the signature it needs, that of president obama. house speaker john boehner signed it in a photo op but he knows president obama promised to veto it. it will generate tens of thousands of new jobs. democrats not so sure. no word on when it will arrive on the president's desk. he'll have ten days to veto it once its arrives. >>> taking a look at the dow, it traded more than 18,000 up. if it closes up it would be the second straight week of gains. right now it seems the dow is up slightly but just below 198. we'll keep an eye on it. >>> gas pleen prices won't help change that. oil hit its highest level trading about $60 a barrel despite an oversupply of crude oil.

the newest member justice kagan. out more than ten minutes of this kind of footage on youtube. the idea is you can use it to play along with the audio that the supreme court releases when they're holding oral arguments. to show you how this works, this is justice ginsburg for the land mark marriage equality case. >> it's as justice kennedy said it affects every area of life. so you are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. there's two kinds of marriage the full marriage and sort of skim milk marriage. >> so that is how that is supposed to work. you can decide whether that quote is made better with the chihuahua. the 81-year-old ruth bader ginsburg needs little help being interested. in the last few years, she's crossed over into a pop culture cult figure. she has a page devoted to rbg. she fell asleep at president obama's state of the union street, more than once. she explained this year's snooze was caused by a bottle of california wine. she admitted she was not 100% sober during that address. if a

i have just kagan on my left, sotomayor on my right. and if you watch proceedings in our court -- you really should it's quite a show -- [laughter] -- my newest colleague not a shrinking violet. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they are very much a part of the colloquy. yes. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? and my answer is, when there are nine. [laughter] some people are taken aback until they remember that for most of our country's history there were only men on the high court bench. >> now, i want to open the floor for questions. but just one last question. as you're about to -- all of our students here are about to start their legal career, and you've had just such an extraordinary career. is there one or two pieces of advice that you'd like to give them as they're about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i've done in the law. i think it's a great profession. but i will say that if all i was in the law business for was to turn o

calls for justice kagan to recuse because she was defending the law as the solicitor general. thinks about abortion. we know what justice stevens when he was on the court thought about the death penalty. in the end it comes down to the individual justice to make these decisions. i don't think it's going to happen. >> we also have justice ginsburg admitting she was not 100% sober when she fell asleep at the state of the unionment does it surprise you to see her speaking that candid di? >> she's been doing more interviews speaking more candidly over the past couple of years. hab she wants to pull back the curtain a little bit on the court. we don't know much about the justices and their daily lives. this is a little bit more about them as people which is probably a good thing. >> the first briefs in the same-sex marriage case are expected to be filed in two weeks. what are we going to see? >> a lot of the arguments we saw last time when there was the channel to california's ban on same-sex marriage. i think we will see, you know from both sides. a little bit about what justice g

if i could return to justice kagan's question about the interests that are served. it's different. a directional sign there needs to be more than, in order to direct travelers along a route, so that justifies a -- perhaps a smaller size there's no contention in the record in fact the court of appeals found that the function as intended. as far as the duration is concerned, there's no travelers going to an event that is not presently occurring, in fact, the town of gilbert expanded the time frame from two hours to 12 hours, and i -- our question is, whether or not that's something that implicates first amendment jurisprudence. >> suppose we're talking about the context of signs. let's look to the push. of forbidding -- for any prohibition. i guess it has to do with safety or bought fiction. >> yes. >> first question would be, is there some category that you don't allow to put up signs. >> no. everybody can put up signs. so what about applying strict scrutiny to that. if you're going to extinguish on the basis of what the sign says, you have to have an awfully good reason. if your de

elainea kagan at the institute of politics a couple of weeks ago.she obviously wasn't going to comment on her observation of the health of her colleagues. but we were-- i was wondering about that. i don't know. and it will be interesting if he does because of the makeup of the senate. >> rose: would he want to sit? >> you know i always thought before the presidential stuff really came into the fore i always thought that might be a place for him. >> rose: and if he lost the nomination to hillary hillly shall did -- hillary might have -- >> maybe so and he actually talked about her. i wrote about this as a potential supreme court justice. >> rose: absolutely right. he also said that it didn't necessarily appeal to him. >> right. i don't-- i honestly think that he is looking forward to a private life a life of writing. he'll have a foundation. he'll work on problems he cares about. i don't see him going to the court. i don't think he is going to be william howard taft and follow his presidency with a estimate on the supreme court. >> rose: but he will

i have justice kagan at my left, justice sotomayor on my right and if you come and watch proceedings in our court you really should come as quite a show. [laughter] my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they very much are part of the colloquy. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court? my answer is when there are nine. [applause] [laughter] and some people were taken aback. so we remember for most of our countries history there were all men on the high court bench. >> i want to open the floor for questions but one last question as you are about to come alive for students here are about to start their legal career and you have had such an extraordinary career is there one or two pieces of advice if you would like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have loved everything that i have done. it's a great profession but i will say that if all that i was in cobol business for would be to turn over a -- i don't think i would have had nearly the satisfa

[laughter] anyway, fast forward to my grand colleague who spoke here last year elena kagan, when she became dean of the law school, she said every years ruth, we would love for you to have a hard -- harvard law school degree. [laughter] and when elena made that offer marty said hold out for an honorary degree can. [laughter] i have only one degree, it is from columbia -- you can't rewrite history, but i do have an honorary degree from harvard university in 2011. [laughter] >> justice was belatedly done. [laughter] and you were at the top of your class at harvard, harvard law review, top of your class at columbia columbia law review. what was it like then looking for work? you talked about how hard it was, you know no women were allowed to apply for many jobs. >> i had a tailored black suit that my ever-supportive mother-in-law got for my interviews, and then i was stunned that no one was interested. only two firms called me to be downtown offers preliminary interviews, and those two with ended up not giving me an offer. but it was this wonderful professor -- [inaudible] maybe you've

well flashforward to my grand kol league who speak here last year elena kagan who became dean of the law school. every year she said, ruth, we would love you to have a harvard law school degree. and when elena made that offer marty said, hold out for an honorary degree. so i have only one law degree. it is from columbia. can't rewrite history. but i do have an honorary degree from harvard university in 2011. >> justice was belatedly done. you were the top of your class at harvard harvard law review top of your class at columbia columbia law review. what was it like then looking for work? you talked about how hard it was. no women were allowed to apply for many jobs. >> i had a tailored black suit that my ever-supportive mother-in-law got for my interviews. and then i was stunned that no one was interested. only two firms called me to the downtown office after preliminary interview at columbia. and those two ended up not giving me an offer. but it was this wonderful professor, jerry ludlow, maybe you used his book. he was in charge of clerkships for columbia students. and he called ev

i have justice kagan on my left, justice sotomayor on my right. and if you watch proceedings in our court, you really should it is quite a show, my newest colleagues are not shrinking violets. so the public will see that women are all over the bench. they are very much a part of the colloquy colloquy. yes. people ask me sometimes when do you think it will be enough? when will there be enough women on the court. and my answer is, when there are nine. some people are taken aback, until they remember that from most of our country's history there were only men on the high court bench. >> now i want to open the floor for questions but just one last question. as you're about to -- all of our students here are about to start their legal career, and you've had just such an extraordinary career, is there one or two pieces of advice that you'd like to give them as they are about to begin? >> i have done everything that i've done in the law. i think it is a great profession. but i will say that if all i was in the law business for was to turn over a buck i d

for more on cameras in the court and c-span's role in the court we want to turn to justice kagan's statementf policy when she was asked about her need cameras in the supreme court. [video clip] >> i used to be solicitor general and i used to go up there for not only my own argument but because they were people in my office with different argument. i was there day after day in the front row, kind of getting this front row seat to this institution. we used to think, this is really quite amazing how well this institution operates, and if people were able to see it, you know, these nine people with a differing range of views about legal matters, but all coming in and taking their seats on the bench so well prepared, who asked such excellent questions and who in my mind really look as though they are trying to get it right, then it would be great if everybody could see that. there are lots of good reasons. you know, because people should serve as a checkpoint on institutions, but also that people should see their institutions working well. there is another side to it, too. the other side is that

he actually spends new year's eve with justice right baiter ginsburg, justice scalia and elana kagan. they know him and will often refer to him by the first name. so the pay attention when he speaks like they pay attention to the regulars up there, and he has certainly -- let's see. he's been on 60 something arguments before the justices. he has some different quirks of which watches he wears what he argues, howl he does it. it's fascinating to watch him and watch hough the justices respond -- watch how the justices respond. they responsibility especially to many of the former solicitors general, just like seth waxman who was the solicitor general for bill clinton, and ted olson was she solicitor general for george w. bush. >> does he play to the justices? >> well, they all know to argue to justice kennedy. he is awesome in the swing vote position. or they know which justice might be the swing vote in their particular case. whether it's on something like same-sex marriage, that he is doing now or if it's on a pension case. these lawyers know who they need to convince. >> how o. -- you