. >> starting with justice rehnquist. >> back then confirmation hearings were usually brief and tameffairs. >> you were a competent judge, capable of being a functioning justice, you would get confirmed. >> the bork confirmation changed that. >> judge bork should be immediately confirmed -- >> the right thought bork would be i ashoohin. he was a distinguished scholar and an appeals court judge. >> so well thought of in the legal academy there would be no problem getting him confirmed. >> the left saw him as a far right extremist. >> liberals were appropriately worried about what robert bork would do if he got on the supreme court. >> among his views, he was against the 1964 civil rights act. >> blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters. >> ted kennedy led the charge against bork. >> robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions. >> the women's groups frankly are afraid. they're afraid of you. >> one incendiary example of why? bork had upheld a mandatory sterilization order for women who wanted to work at a chemical plant. >> i suppose th

it is funny that chief justice rehnquist said that. i clerked for chief justice marshall, and he was one of my predecessors as solicitor general. if you had asked justice marshall what was his best job in law, and remember, this is a person not only a supreme court justice, but the head of the legal defense fund and that rule has reshaped all of american society, but if you asked justice marshall what was the best job in law, he would say being solicitor general. for him, just a special meeting -- meaning and residence, just a black man walking up to a podium saying, i'm here to represent the united states, when in his prior legal career, he was run out of town on a rail as he traversed different courtrooms across the southern united states. it meant an enormous amount to him from that perspective, but i think also he would tell you it is just an awesome job, where you are making these big decisions. of course you have bosses, but you rarely go up to the attorney general and the presidency and you are making these big decisions about l

chief justice rehnquist claimed the constitution gave state legislatures complete control over presidentialblicans want that unchecked power over all federal elections. to put it simply, state legislatures can do whatever they want, and even the state supreme court has no authority to say what you're doing violates the state constitution. >> and what makes this so poignant is right now in america, most of the state legislatures are controlled by republicans. >> six of rehnquist's fellow justices rejected the theory. but this court has seen four conservatives already voice some you support. if the theory stands, election experts predict chaos in any close contest, with legislatures questioning the results and even selecting their own electors. >> imagine it's 2024. the presidential election is so close it all comes down to one state, let's say pennsylvania. >> pennsylvania's voters choose the democrat. but the republican dominated legislature claims fraud and awards the state to their candidate. >> so now the president of the united states is going to be the republican candidate. >> even tho

william rehnquist surfaced this independent state legislature theory.t was wildly popular at the time except for one other justice. that is going to be coming up this term whether or not the legislatures themselves can throw out palms that they don't like. the other big case will be tuesday and that's called merrill -- this is about the alabama gerrymandered. alabama put forward a map that will -- that had one majority/minority district and probably should have had to. it was so racially divisive that the conservative alabama state court said that's too much for us. it goes up to the 11th circuit court of appeal, a trump court in the 11th circuit, two judges picked by trump were like you can't do that. brett kavanaugh said wait. not to raced for me. -- not too racist for me. long before the election this year, brett kavanaugh and his cronies said we are too close to the election to change alabama's map so we have to go with the racist map for this election. that's what's happening in november. cannot tober, he said we will decide whether long-term -- in

he then had a clerkship with chief justice william rehnquist at the supreme court, and has a really funny story about that that i urge our folks from our legal department to stick around after the presentation and maybe ask about the story that is connected with chief justice rehnquist that's pretty humorous. after practicing as a litigator with an international law firm, actually, i think that's you. i skipped a bullet point there. how terrible. so back to john o'neill. you had several hundred cases that you tried including representation. this is interesting, and kind of ironic. he represented the people's republic of china at one point successor but then realized press with you all about and decide not to do it ever again. sarah wynne is a co-author with john a new, of course his book were talked about big also graduated from university of texas with melodically and an undergraduate business agree with high honors. and after practicing as a litigator with international law firm you decided to take up a second career as an artist or what kind of art? >> mainly acrylic art. i sell and so

law school and finished top graduated and he has a really funny story about hits time with justice rehnquist. it is humorous after practicing as litigator with international law firm, that is you. -- skipped a bullet point. how terrible. back to john o'neill, you had several hundred cases you tried including representation. you represented the people's republic of china at one point. successfully. but then realized perhaps what they were about. sara wynn also graduated from university of texas with a law degree and under graduate business degree with high honors, after practicing as litigator you took up a second career at artist. >> acrylic. >> you live in houston with your husband and 2 children. >> you also live in houston. >> i do. >> a nice drive out. >> i am being reminded to use m the mic. >> let me ask the two of you, why this book. this is a topic that is gruesome. there is not at least there has not been in the past a lot of documenttary evidence not until the fall of this soviet union and brief period of time soviet archives were open to the public, what sparked you into writing t

department to stick around after the presentation may be asked about the story with chief justice rehnquistid a pretty humorous. after practicing as a litigator firm.ternational law let's actually you. i skipped a bullet point there how terrible. back to john o'neill, had several hundred cases that you tried including representation for this is interesting and ironic. youth represent the people's republic of china at one point, successfully but then realize perhaps what they're all about decide not to do it everag agai. sarah wynne is of course a co-author with john o'neill for you also graduate university of texas law degree and under graduate degree of high honors. and after practicing asga a litigator international law firm you decide to take up law. cracks acrylic art i found dollars in the southeast. you live in houston right? what i do indeed. let me ask the two of you, why this book? listen to the fall of the soviet union and the brief. when the soviet archives are open to the public. what sparks you into writing this? >> we'd written other books that were bestsellers. i began by rem

but the genesis of this theory was in a concurrence authored by then chief justice william rehnquist, joined biden justices scalia and thomas in bush versus gore. 20 plus years ago. in that separate concurrence, they outlined what is, today, the independent state legislature theory. and the essence of it was that there should be some limit on the state supreme courts interpretations of the law of their state laws. in order that the state legislatures be permitted to legislate the redistricting. so, this theory didn't come out of nowhere. it was grounded in concurrence in the supreme court itself. now, by december 2020, the supreme court had declined to take the case in the context of the 2020 presidential election, under the electors clause. but there was no question at that time that there were at least five justices on the court who we believed would have been interested in some variation of the theory. the only person of the five who had not actually said as much was justice amy coney barrett, who had just come to the court and did not participate in the court's decision to decline

so miranda is reaffirmed a lot, but then in the dickerson case in 2000 chief justice rehnquist writes the opinion considering the stare decisis factors and reaffirming miranda, even the chief justice [inaudible] by the way, had been a fervent critic of miranda throughout his career, he decided that it had been settled too long, had been president too long, and he reaffirmed it -- >> [inaudible] i'm -- >> sorry to interrupt. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. >> i want to switch subjects, and one last question. what would you say your position today is on a woman's right to choose? >> as a judge -- >> as a judge? >> as a judge it is an -- important president of the >> senator, again, i would tell supreme court, i'm in roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey, been reaffirmed >> as a judge -- >> as a judge? many kinds. casey's precedent >> as a judge it is an on precedent, which itself is important president of the supreme court, i'm in roe v. an important factor to wade and planned parenthood versus casey, been reaffirmed remember. and i understand the many kinds. casey's precedent sign