hugo black's at 34, john marshall harlan is down the list, william rehnquist at 33.7 years.e have of the rest on there, john maclean is at 31 years, byron white, 30, and antonin scalia who is still on the court at 29 years. we did a poll and more than a a majority say that they should not have an appointed for life. what do you think? tony: well, i agree that life tenure is awfully long. when the founders established life tenure, people didn't live as long, so people might have served 20 years, but now justices could be on there for 40 or more years. you sort of lose touch with a society if you are up there that long. so i think there is some merit to it. the benefit of it is that the justices don't have to worry about politics. they don't have to worry about their next job so they don't have to please certain factions one way or another. they can decide things independently and if they lose life tenure, that might be lost. brian: john marshall, who served 34 years and is the second longest-serving justice, at his home in richmond, there is the black robe that you referred t

justice rehnquist who wrote the unanimous opinion said this about the role of cartoonists. lincolns tall gangly posture, teddy roosevelt glasses and teeth and franklin roosevelt jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoonist with the fact that could not have been detained by the photographer or the portrait artist. from the viewpoint of history it is clear our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them. it was hard to find, but it did find, some representation of what president george w. bush thinks about political cartoonist. he wrote a book in 2010 called decision point, and in it he talks about the critical decisions he made in his presidency. want of which was to retain vice president cheney on the ticket the second time he ran for office in reelection. are. and he said vice president cheney came to him in 2003 and offered to move on and that president bush had the opportunity to select another running mate in the upcoming election and here's what president bush said. i did consider his offer. i talked to andy k

decisions averaged 44%, a significant increase over the previous 10 years under rehnquist, where the average was 32%. still, the court's divisions are deep. in the past year, more than a quarter of the decisions were on 5-4 splits. >> as a young attorney in 1979 and 1980, roberts clerked for then justice william rehnquist. colleagues say that experience had a profound impact on roberts and his judicial philosophy. >> holding the people in charge responsible, why the former federal reserve chairman says the justice department did not go far enough to punish bankers tied to the financial crisis. >> it has been seven years license lehman brothers collapse marked the start of the financial crise. in an interview with "u.s.a. today," former fed chairman ben bernanke said more should having to jail for their actions. >> it would have been my preference to have more investigation of individual actions, as obviously everything that went wrong or was illegal was done by some individual, not by, you know, an abstract firm, and so in that respect, i think there should have been more accountabil

even though the main protagonists in the case was larry flynt, hardly a sympathetic figure to the rehnquist court, certainly. in 1988,imous ruling the supreme court held in favor of hustler magazine and for the right of cartoonist to entertain and inform us with their andtimes a savage, cruel insightful editorials about politics and their figures. her career long support for the cartoonists craft. she is a magna cum laude, phi beta kappa graduate of syracuse university, go orange. and she received her masters degree from the catholic university. herse join me in welcoming to hofstra so she can introduce the panel. [applause] good morning everyone. for the second time, i would like to thank hofstra for including the unique perspectives of some of our countries national treasures for political cartoonists who have drawn president george w. bush among other presidents and cultural icons throughout their distinguished careers. is steveediate left, breen. he was born in los angeles and grew up in neighboring orange county, the second oldest of the children. the university of california at rivers

main protagonist in the case was larry flint, sympathetic figure to the rehnquist court certainly. in 1988animous ruling the supreme court held in favor of hustler magazine and for the toht of cartoonists entertain and inform us with cruel --etimes savage, not you guys -- but insightful editorials about figures.and public she's earned an enduring place in the hearts of the special throughand their fans her career-long support for the cartoonist craft. he's a graduate of syracuse orange, andgo received her law degree from the columbus school of law at university. please join me in welcoming hofstra and to introduce our panel. [applause] everyone.rning, for the second time i'd like to thank hofstra for including the perspectives of some of our country's national treasures political cartoonists who have drawn president george w. among other presidents and cultural icons throughout their careers.shed to my immediate left is steve breen. steve was born in los angeles and grew up in neighboring second oldest the of eight children, he attended the university of california at riverside whe

hugo black at 34, john marshall harlan is down the list, william rehnquist at 33.7. we have of the rest on there, and john mclean is at 31 years, byron white, 30, and antonin scalia who is still on the court at 29 years. we did a poll and more than a majority say that they should not have an appointment for life. what do you think? tony: well, i agree that life tenure is awfully long. when the founders established life tenure, people didn't live as long, so life tenure might have have been 20 years, but now justices could be on there for 40 or more years. you sort of lose touch with a society if you are up there that long. so i think there is some merit to it. the problem, though, is the benefit of it is that the justices don't have to worry about politics. they also don't have to worry about their next job, so they don't have to please certain factions one way or another. they can decide things independently, and if they lose life tenure, that might be lost. brian: john marshall, who served 34 years, the second longest-serving justice, at his home in richmond, there

william rehnquist, states rights. roberts' is getting rid of racial preferences. he said the way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, by which he meant, any discrimination is unlawful. case,k he will use this to the extent that he can get kennedy to come along, to do away with racial preferences in admissions. >> bear in mind that kennedy has never in his career voted to uphold an affirmative action program. you take the chief justice's project and that he has four votes, the fifth vote has never voted for affirmative action, there is a lot of reason for liberals to be nervous. refused inagan is kagan is-- elana ena recused in the case. >> very likely. >> none of these cases have the the one decided last year or the constitutionality of the individual mandate. the affordable care act is here to stay, unless congress overturns it with a republican president. the courts are now done with the law. many aspects of the law will be before the court. charlie rose: including contraception. what is that? >> it is

william rehnquist, states rights. i think john roberts' is getting rid of racial preferences.e had a famous line in one of his early opinions where he said, the way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, and by that, he meant, any consideration of race by the government or a public institution like the university of texas is unlawful. i think he will use this case, to the extent that he can get kennedy to come along, to do away with racial preferences in admissions. >> bear in mind that kennedy has never in his career voted to uphold an affirmative action program. so, if you take the chief justice's project and that he has four votes, the fifth vote has never voted for affirmative action, there is a lot of reason for liberals to be nervous. add to it that justice kagan is recused in the case. the liberal numbers are diminished. will the affordable care act be considered one more time by the court? >> the provisions will be considered for decades. it is so enormous. >> very likely. but none of these cases have , the ma

bush in the supremerked at court for his predecessor, nixon appointee william rehnquist, came of age professionally in the reagan administration. guest: i think we can all agree that being really smart, wicked as john roberts is, is an important credential. but it's not the beginning and the end of what we look for in a judge. for someonewe look with excellent credentials, but we look for people of impeccable honesty. we also look at one's view and division of the role of the court. do nominees believe that the courts are there to merely serve the 1%, the wealthy? someone's vision of the courts interpret the constitution as giving access, a hearing, not just to the powerful, but to everyone in america? and when john roberts appeared at his confirmation hearing, there was certainly no question that he was well credentialed. the issue was what was his vision of the constitution? at there were many of us time who said his vision of the constitution was such that the little guy, the everyday american, would really have a hard time getting a hearing before the supreme court. host: you men

clerk for a judge all united states court of appeals said can circuit than a clerk for chief justice rehnquist. then he went to work for the reagan administration the office of legal counsel in white house counsel then went to work at a law firm in washington specializing in representing business interests before the united states supreme court and took time off to go work at the solicitor general's office they present before the supreme court he was the number 2% to kenneth starr while there he would refer urging the supreme court'' to overrule roe vs. wade -- weighed in with prayer in schools he went back to be a lawyer in tell president george w. bush made him a judge on the court of appeals to the circuit and spent two years there and tell a july 2005 president george turvey bush nominated him to be chief justice of the united states john roberts was 50 years old then. if he lives to be 90 when stevens retired you will still be on the supreme court and another 30 years. >>host: in a nutshell what is the case against the roberts court? >>guest: i think it consistently has favored business o

bush in the supremerked at court for his predecessor, nixon appointee william rehnquist, came of agefessionally in the reagan administration. guest: i think we can all agree that being really smart, wicked as john roberts is, is an important credential. but it's not the beginning and the end of what we look for in a judge. for someonewe look with excellent credentials, but we look for people of impeccable honesty. we also look at one's view and division of the role of the court. do nominees believe that the courts are there to merely serve the 1%, the wealthy? someone's vision of the courts interpret the constitution as giving access, a hearing, not just to the powerful, but to everyone in america? and when john roberts appeared at his confirmation hearing, there was certainly no question that he was well credentialed. the issue was what was his vision of the constitution? at there were many of us time who said his vision of the constitution was such that the little guy, the everyday american, would really have a hard time getting a hearing before the supreme court. host: you mention

chief justice rehnquist said it was the greatest give americans gave to the science of government and it is a very or to sensible. -- and it is a very important principle. there should be healthy disagreements about that. frequently, if somebody does not like the outcome of a decision of the supreme court, that invalidates an action that is unconstitutional, they view that as judicial activism from whatever perspective. a vigorousd be discussion about how the supreme court exercises that jurisdiction. the fact that they have that authority to provide the last word on constitutional issues is, i think, a very important protector of our liberty. i want to give a shout out to chief justice roberts, who began our conversation. there have been four times in american history, basically, when a new president, representing a rising political force, has confronted a court that represents the old political force, ghosts of political pass, and the first is jefferson and marshall. there is a confrontation. marshall, to his credit, pokes jefferson, but at the last minute shows prudence and does no

william rehnquist was reviving states' rights. john roberts, it's not entirely clear even after ten years what his project is. but to the extent he has one, i think it is getting rid of any sort of racial preferences. you know, he had a famous line in one of his early opinions where he said the way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. and by that he meant any consideration of race by the government or a public institution like the university of texas, is unlawful. and i think he is going to use this case to the extent he can get anthony kennedy to come along, to really try to do away with any sort of racial preferences and admission. >> an bear in mind, bear in mind that anthony kennedy has never in his career on the supreme court voted to uphold an affirmative action program so if you take the chief justices project as jeff described it, the fact that the chief almost certainly has four votes, and the fact that the fifth vote justice kennedy has never voted to uphold an

former chief justice rehnquist said it was the greatest gift americans ever gave to the science of governmentimportant principle. but that doesn't mean we agree on how that power of review is exercised and there are going to be and should be healthy disagreements about that. and frequently, if somebody doesn't like the outcome of a decision of the supreme court, that invalidates an action 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 it has that authority to provide the last word on constitutional issues is i think a very important protector of our liberty. >> akhil amar? >> since you mentioned king versus burrwell, i want to give a shoutout to chief justice roberts who began our conversation. there have been four times in american history basically when a new president representing a sort of rising political force has confronted a court that represents the old political force. ghosts of presidents past. and the first is jefferson confronting marshall and

so first roberts clerked for rehnquist, then he joins the reagan justice department.nd just to give a little history lesson for those who may have forgotten, ronald reagan opposed the civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965 and the fair housing act of 1968. so reagan opposed all of the greatest pieces of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. and roberts went to work for reagan, and one of his chief aseenments was -- assignments was working on the voting rights act when it was coming before congress. he wrote memo after memo saying if you drew a district that would allow an african-american or hispanic or asian-american to be elected, that that would lead to quota systems in electoral politics. what we see is that you can draw a straight line from the activism that john roberts had in opposition to the voting rights act as a young lawyer in the reagan justice department and then him being elevated as chief justice and gutting the voting rights act. so i don't think that he was based this decision just necessarily on data or current things. i think this

i think chief justice william rehnquist was on the court through six presidents. if yo >> would you enforce a clear and unequivocal law, even if you personally disagreed with it? that's on twitter.ext in you can follow along at c-span wj if you want to. >> caller: good morning.feels th thank you so much for this opportunity. i am a person who feels that the court is dysfunctional and political is a word that is used to describe that dysfunctionalty. the court does not represent the magna carta, which is a cornerstone. and chief justice roberts was, as you said, wickedly smart wits his interview on c-span when d,a susan asked himt about the citizens united case. he said what are you going to an do,a impeach me? at this point, i'm pushing for a magna carta chartership honoring the magna carta so people like tom hardin, who was on c-span yesterday, can reveal that the santa rosa case, which was based on a clerk's note, was then thei precedent for the citizens for united authority that the e. supreme court used for their icn case thatd corporations are r people.eato t

and whether it was in the mid 80s with rehnquist and scalia when they were trying to be nominated beforeiver north, it's a congressional phenomenon, these panels seem to fall flat on their face and yesterday a very bad day for trey gowdy and the republicans. maybe some new evidence came out but it just didn't happen yesterday. >> i happened to watch and listen to almost all of the hearings. >> oh, god. >> don't ask me why. i know it's pathetic. >> no, i think it's beyond that. >> 11 hours the former secretary of state sat there. it was an amazing performance. the questioning was largely hostile, angry, disrespectful toward her, towards her office, toward the casualties of benghazi that day. i harken back to committee hearings, you just alluded to them and i ended up thinking about halfway through the 11 hours that had this committee been employed to investigate the watergate break-in instead of sam irvin, a democrat, and howard baker, a republican, instead of sam dash, the democratic counsel and fred thompson, the republican counsel, who completed that hearing skillfully, legitimately, i