rehnquist." in it, the publisher of cq press details the early career and the 33-year supreme court tenure of the former chief justice. he talks with supreme court reporter and the biographer for justices o'connor and scalia, joan biskupic. >> host: welcome, john jenkins. >> guest: thank you. >> host: we're here to talk about "the partisan: the life of william rehnquist." i'm going to start with one general question just to give our viewers a sense of who the chief justice is and why william rehnquist was important. there have only been 17 chiefs, correct? >> guest: correct, that's right. >> host: tell us about the position, what does a chief justice of the united states do and the importance of william rehnquist, and then we'll go into his chronology. >> guest: well, the chief is really, he has two roles in the judicial system. he's, first, kind of the chief among equals on the court. he assigns the opinion when he's in the majority, he leads the discussion at conference. so he has a very impor

rehnquist later said it wasn't true. he confessed to jackson that it wasn't true so rehnquist said i need to make a decision so can you help me out here? it was really kind of smart on rehnquist's part and jackson comes back and he says, you know, i think we could use -- as jackson put it, a second man. i think we could use a second man and maybe by march of next year because i think the workload is going to be really hard for one man. in those days they were the clerks. so rehnquist petitioned andy said i could come earlier. i would like to be there in january so jackson says okay, in january and basically that was it. so rehnquist kind of the right man at the right time. the timing was perfect and rehnquist drives the school studebaker which he talks about in his memoir about the supreme court, he drives the studebaker out to washington with no heater and is caught in a blizzard that he gets there and he shows up at the court and he actually starts working. he is in awe of the supreme court and the corinthian columns i

so rehnquist writes a memo about brown v. board of education and he basically says that plessy should stand. rehnquist offers this memo, gives it to jackie. jackson doesn't -- i'm sure jackson read the memo, but he posted away and of course he's one of the nine justices to unanimously vote to strike down plessy v. ferguson, which finally is decided in 1854. it was actually we heard the year after career get hereafter. >> significant that it gets rid of. >> host: but ran quest was against a finding in the holding in that case. rehnquist believed as a supreme court clerk that that was the wrong outcome and he argued passionately. if you think back when i was looking at his early years at stanford, it is clear that this is not something new, okay? this is not something new to him. this is really in his firmament. he believes that plessy is right and should be affirmed as he says in the memo. there are some other cases come in many come in many, many cases coming along that the court is having to decide whether to accept. and the

just be converted about the rehnquist court, i think it is useful to think about the rehnquist court in two parts. 1986-2000, and 2000-2005, the dividing point in history of the court in many respects is a dividing point in the history of the country and the court's decision in bush v. gore. now, justice scalia does a lot of public speaking, and he's often asked a kind of hostile questions about bush v. gore. why did you do bush v. gore? and he always says the same thing. oh, get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just myself, i am so not over it. [applause] >> four i wrote "the nine" i wrote, i wrote a book called too close to call about the recount in florida. it had a big part in bush v. gore, and one thing i try to do in reporting that book was interview al gore. obviously, you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i tried everything. he didn't want to relive the expense. just by coincidence i met al gore while i was working on "the nine" and i said to him, he had read "too close to close." we're talking about that. i said, i'm writing another book where bush v. gore

i'm not sure that rehnquist would've voted as roberts did. i'm not sure that he would voted as part of the affordable care act. >> i was betting against roberts, too. then what would have happened is that somebody else would have stepped up. i think that roberts is different in some ways. he is much more polished in dealing with his constituency. but conservatives believe are cut from the stable of cloth. >> host: john jenkins, thank you for being with us and good luck with your book. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> that was "after words", booktv signature program in which authors are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every weekend at 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on sunday and 12 pm. click on the booktv series and topics list on the upper side of the page. coming up next, john limbert talks about his book "negotiaing with iran." this interview is part of booktv's college series, it was recorded at the u.s. naval academy in annapolis, maryland. >>

just speaking briefly about the rehnquist court. i think it is useful, um, to think about the rehnquist court in two parts. 1986 to 2000 and 2000 to 2005. and the dividing point in the history of the court and in many respects the dividing point in the history of the country is the court's decision in bush v. gore. now, justice scalia does a lot of public speaking, and he's often asked a kind of hostile question about bush v. gore like why did you, why did you do bush v. gore. and he always says the same thing. he says, oh, get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just for myself, i am so not over it. [laughter] ms. . [applause] i am really not over it. and the, um, before i wrote "the nine" i wrote a, i wrote a book called "too close to call" about the recount in florida, and, you know, which obviously had a big part about bush v. gore. and one thing i tried to do in reporting that book was interview al gore. obviously, you know, you're going to tell that story, you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i tried everythin

just speaking briefly about the rehnquist court. i think it is useful, um, to think about the rehnquist court in two parts. 1986 to 2000 and 2000 to 2005. and the dividing point in the history of the court and in many respects the dividing point in the history of the country is the court's decision in bush v. gore. now, justice scalia does a lot of public speaking, and he's often asked a kind of hostile question about bush v. gore like why did you, why did you do bush v. gore. and he always says the same thing. he says, oh, get over it. [laughter] well, speaking just for myself, i am so not over it. [laughter] ms. . [applause] i am really not over it. and the, um, before i wrote "the nine" i wrote a, i wrote a book called "too close to call" about the recount in florida, and, you know, which obviously had a big part about bush v. gore. and one thing i tried to do in reporting that book was interview al gore. obviously, you know, you're going to tell that story, you want to interview al gore. he wouldn't talk to me. i tried everythin

but conservative like his boss, william rehnquist, i think really cut from the same bolt of cloth. >> host: john jenkins, thank you so much and good luck with your book. >> guest: thank you very much. thanks for having me today. .. >> [applause] >> thank you very much. and as always to my favorite politics and prose. i love that bookstore. [applause] and and to each and every one of you i am glad to be with so many friends tonight. not a double meaning but all that and do some of my oldest in the audience. it means a great deal to me. tomorrow is my birthday i will be on the airplane to go someplace i have not checked the schedule yet. [laughter] i think it is portland door again or 78 go. -- san diego. united airlines will not give me presents. [laughter] who is here with us tonight? i am glad. [applause] i feel safer in a room with teachers. they are my heroes. especially in the elementary grades. i used to teach there it is the best thing to do but heche in life. mystery can end mischief with those point* sized people. if i decide to stop writing books i think it like to go back to

republican party for a long time i mean you know the former supreme court justice chief justice rehnquist made his jobs down in arizona frightening literally i mean he was a big tall guy back in the sixty's. americans at the polling at the polling places challenging. i mean look if the more people who are watching american polling places on election day as long as they're not interfering with americans right to vote you know what a lot of these red states have actually passed laws saying you can't observe inside the polling place well look if it's a matter of if it's a matter of yeah. then actual i mean you know they're trying to prevent these international bodies from coming in but i think this was a problem even republicans are encouraging people to be allowed into the polling stations even people on the left everybody is ready for it they're going to i phones are going to be ready for there's not going to be any suppression there's going to be yeah you know it's not it's going to intimidate the people who would commit voter fraud like a. lot of them knows you know jim moran jim rand so

he was a victim of the very strict enforcement of bill rehnquist when the red light goes on and he never really was happy with the fact that the senate judiciary committee was treated just like any other. but i also remember the case that he particularly in my memory of conversations with him he particularly was unhappy about was bill rehnquist's opinion in the violence against women act in which the court held the statute unconstitutional and wrote an opinion which senator specter fault was not adequately differential or respectful of congressional findings. and on more than one occasion he thought they should have shown more deference to the congress. i just want to mention to the center before i began with what i want to represent to you. before answering questions that may occur to you, i shall make three comments. two of them relating to the supreme court's 2008 decision in the district of columbia against heller three and a third to the court's 1997 decision in prince against the united states. as i am sure you all remember the central issue concerned the scope of the second amendm

john jenkins discusses the life of william rehnquist in the partisan with post jon cubic.s is booktv.org with more on this weekend's television schedule. >> booktv's visit to augusta, maine with time warner cable highlight some of the rich literary culture of the area. the city of agusta has evolved from being a trading post in the 1700s to being a magazine publishing hub from the 1800s to the 20th century and also home to harriet beecher stowe, author of uncle tom's kevin. our coverage of the visit continues. >> the only city that actually has a major river and we occupied both sides of the river so we have an east and west side of the river and the river has become a defining point so that is unique. the other thing is what is unique is the state capital, we have access -- we host the state legislature and the governor's mansion and have all the government services you would expect to have with it being the state capital. state capital has its benefits. we are proud of being the state capital. i am sure if you have been to the state government in your backyard, it can po

he is a graduate of princeton university and harvard law previous work with chief justice william rehnquistthe bush-cheney campaign in 2000, work with the federal trade commission and the department of justice before serving as the nation's youngest solicitor general. but to have them both re today. [applause] the gentleman, thank you so much for being here. you both had quite a summer. mayor castor, let me ask you to reflect on this summer. -- mayor castro, let me ask you to reflect on this summer. >> first, a greenwich solutions for of and for a wonderful event. -- first, congratulation for evident for a wonderful event -- for evan for a wonderful event. it was like throwing a claustrophobic into a closet and then taking away the key. [laughter] i think what we have seen in historical cycle of some of what we saw in 2010 -- in this 2012 cycle is in some of what we saw in 2010. people are still committed to the fundamental ideals that make the nine states special, that make it a land of opportunity, that make it a believe the greatest country in the world. in the same time gun they are ner

important now when we have time problems that the issue of the search of the vehicle and chief justice rehnquistade a comment. chief what's the problem? driver the vehicle has to do is say stop searching in the in the end the police will stop. well justice marshal burst out laughing and the entire gallery of the supreme court worst out laughing because the reality is that would never, ever ever happen in the real world. and do you know what? is the same thing here danielle, the issue that u.s. before david was what should they do in these cases? here is the problem from the very get-go. is whether an alert by a well trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is by itself sufficient to establish probable cause? well the very question itself is improper because there is no such thing as a well trained narcotics detection dog. it means whatever and a trial judge or appellate judge or supreme court justice wants it to mean. that is the problem. and so in my opinion, to answer your question, they should uphold the florida supreme court cases but as mark suggests they shoul

>> well, a the party ruled in 1893 and the rehnquist court in 1978 the compacts that do not threatenederal supremacy do not require congressional consent and so this is an exclusive state power if that is judicial precedent were continued. a very conservative decision in 1978 gives the state more power intrusion by the congress and the state decision. if that judicial opinion were to remain in force and upheld the compact would require consent. after we get states representing a majority of the people in the united states in the majority of states and in the electoral vote, going to congress to be a different matter than it would be today for example. the public demand for national popular vote would be clearly on record. >> i just asked because it seems to me the compact clause is they are also to originally prevent states from engaging in agreements that harm other states. certainly in my view this would change the way we elect the president and half of those states for half of the electoral states pass the electoral vote wouldn't have any say. there were just be a new system in wh

particularly, in my memory of conversations with him, that he particularly was unhappy about was bill rehnquist'sota in the violence -- opinion in the violence against women act in which the court held the statute unconstitutional and wrote an opinion which senator specter thought was not adequately deferential or respect offul of congressional -- respectful of congressional findings. and he on more than one occasion he thought the court should have shown more deference to congress. well, i just wanted to mention the senator before i began with what i've written to present to you. before answering questions that may occur to you, i shall make three brief comments; two relating to the supreme court's 2008 decision in district of columbia against heller and the third to the court's 1997 decision in prince against the united states. as i'm sure you all remember, the central issue in heller concerned the scope of the second amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms. over the years guns have been used for military purposes, for hunting, for self-defense, for criminal activities and occ