it focused on the fact that there is something that has rights. >> what we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? -- why don't we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? [laughter] >> as you can see, this has been a tremendous amount of fun for all of us. we really enjoy ourselves. i think that the ultimate pronouncement is that peter jennings will have been very pleased. that is an extremely high standard. thank you all, so much. [laughter] [applause] >> you can see this program again or any other "america and the courts" program as c- span.org. join us next week for "america and the courts" here on c-span. >> this is c-span, public affairs programming. up next, the head of the national and dormant -- the national endowment for the arts. and then, supreme court justice brieyer, and then the annual radio and tv correspondents dinner. >> now, the former head for the national endowment for the humanities discusses the importance of understanding culture and the arts. this conversation is moderated by the former head of the national endowment for the arts. this lasts about one hour. >> good afternoon. w

it focused on the fact that there is something that has rights. >> what we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? -- why don't we have a discussion of roe vs. wade? [laughter] >> as you can see, this has been a tremendous amount of fun for all of us. we really enjoy ourselves. i think that the ultimate pronouncement is that peter jennings will have been very pleased. that is an extremely high standard. thank you all, so much. [laugh [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you can see this >> you can see this program again at c-span.org. just click on "america and the courts" under the c-span series link. join us next week for "america and the courts." saturday evenings at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> coming up next, a "reporters without borders" next with an iranian photojournalist. and then the student documentary, "text driven," and then your calls and comments on today's "washington journal." >> today on "news makers," republican governor mitch daniels, george w. bush's director of the office of management and budg

even those who agree with the outcome of roe vs. wade have admitted that the legal reasoning behind it was flawed. a lot of decisions, once you say the word liberty, is not accurate. means whatever the supreme court thinks ought to be a liberty. you have given the court an enormous power over democracy, because everything we read into the bill of rights of bridges democracy. it means you cannot vote on that anymore. it is not up to the people anymore. it must be this way. that is simply not the road we should go down if we want our responsible, seriously functioning democracy. only unimportant matters do we try to persuade each other and vote on. really significance of such as whether there should be a right to die, a right to assisted suicide, where there should be right to abortion, whether there should be right to homosexual conduct. all this really important stuff. we cannot possibly dispose of those matters democratically by debating with each other and voting. all the really important stuff has to be decided by the supreme court, b

. >> i have to say i didn't know that until rosen pointed it out. 1975, two years after roe vs. wade. it didn't even come up and i was confirmed 98-0. that changed in 1986 with the confirmation over robert bjork, the reagan appointee, the democrats vilified him and said if he's confirmed, it would bring back-to-back -- bring back back alley abortions. >> who knew this -- you knew president ford didn't want a liberal, not the leader of the liberals. that's not how he started out. the thinking was he would be leaning one way the other, it would be to the right. >> there have been surprises. with ford and justice stevens, earl warren in the 1950s who became chief justice of the most liberal court, the warren court and eisenhower said it was the biggest mistake he made and george h.w. bush with david souder. it's a lifetime appointment so if you make a mistake, it's a big mistake that lasts long after you're out of the white house. >> shepard: president ford says his legacy can stand on this one appointment. he was proud when he gave an interview in 2005. >> that's through, jerry ford's

he expressed strong opposition to roe vs. wade. he had testified before congress that he believes the violence against women act was unconstitutional. that is what we had worked on the ad had been passed by a bipartisan majority. -- had worked on and had been passed by a bipartisan majority. he had a number of other areas where he is strongly critical of the supreme court. but, he says that he felt he believed in the doctrine that he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. i supported, even though i disagree with just about everything he had written about, i believe him when he said that he would follow supreme court precedent. i supported his nomination and on like now, when even people come out of here unanimously and are held up month after month, week after week, he was reported favorably by this committee was confirmed in the 10th circuit by voice vote, and he was reported within a day what of his nomination being reported. within one day. we have people now in the lower court and you have to file to get them through

he expressed strong opposition to roe vs. wade. he had testified before congress that he believes the violence against women act was unconstitutional. that is what we had worked on the ad had been passed by a bipartisan majority. -- had worked on and had been passed by a bipartisan majority. he had a number of other areas where he is strongly critical of the supreme court. but, he says that he felt he believed in the doctrine that he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. i supported, even though i disagree with just about everything he had written about, i believe him when he said that he would follow supreme court precedent. i supported his nomination and on like now, when even people come out of here unanimously and are held up month after month, week after week, he was reported favorably by this committee was confirmed in the 10th circuit by voice vote, and he was reported within a day what of his nomination being reported. within one day. we have people now in the lower court and you have to file to get them through

he expressed strong opposition to roe vs. wade. he had testified before congress that he believes the violence against women act was unconstitutional. that is what we had worked on the ad had been passed by a bipartisan majority. -- had worked on and had been passed by a bipartisan majority. he had a number of other areas where he is strongly critical of the supreme court. but, he says that he felt he believed in the doctrine that he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. i supported, even though i disagree with just about everything he had written about, i believe him when he said that he would follow supreme court precedent. i supported his nomination and on like now, when even people come out of here unanimously and are held up month after month, week after week, he was reported favorably by this committee was confirmed in the 10th circuit by voice vote, and he was reported within a day what of his nomination being reported. within one day. we have people now in the lower court and you have to file to get them through

he expressed strong opposition to roe vs. wade.he had testified before congress that he believes the violence against women act was unconstitutional. that is what we had worked on and had been passed by a bipartisan majority. he had a number of other areas where he is strongly critical of the supreme court. but, he says that he felt he believed in the doctrine that he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. i supported, even though i disagree with just about everything he had written about, i believe him when he said that he would follow supreme court precedent. i supported his nomination and on like now, when even people come out of here unanimously and are held up month after month, week after week, he was reported favorably by this committee was confirmed in the 10th circuit by voice vote, and he was reported within a day what of his nomination being reported. within one day. we have people now in the lower court and you have to file to get them through. i put my full statement in the record. >> if i could respond sinc

and even the people who agree with the outcome of roe vs. wade have admitted that the legal reasoning behind it was flawed. no, i mean, we've made a lot of decisions. once you say the word liberty is unanchored. it means whatever the supreme court thinks ought to be a liberty. i mean, you have given the court an enor mouse power over democracy because -- enormous power over democracy because everything we read in the bill of rights abridges democracy. it means you can't vote on it anymore. it's not up to the people anymore. it must be this way. and that is simply not the road we should go down if we want a responsible seriously functioning democracy. only unimportant matters do we try to persuade each other and vote on. really significant stuff such as whether there should be a right to die, a right to assisted suicide, whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be a right to homosexual conduct, all of this really important stuff, oh, we can't possibly dispose of those matters democratically by debating with each other and

you can't say roe vs. wade but what about, i don't know, what about wicker vs. philburn and that just cannot in the last 15 years. it is tricky to realize what will come up again. >> what about justice khalil's refusal -- justice scalia's refusal to discuss madison. edicine. >> i think that roberts was willing to discuss it. that is not open for revisited some very >> i had a sperry's this of the question that goes to a broader. about whether there's the possibility of change in the senate process. it seems to me from observation but maybe you knows this of the wake of this would happen -- maybe you know specifically how this would happen, one major flaw in the hearings was there is no ability on the senators to engage in follow-up questions as they were not listening to the answers. it seems to me in the last several hearings that there was a much more effective process up follow-up questions. do you know the explanation for that? did something physically change in the process? >> no, my experience is that members work very hard to prepare for these hearings. a

people on generally the left side of the aisle in america have made the argument with regard to roe vs. wade and dole vs. bolton and abortion in america, the people on the other side have argued long and hard that the federal government has no business telling a person what they can and can't do with their body. that's the argument. so they argue that the federal government can't regulate nor diminish nor make it more restrictive for a woman who seeks an abortion to get that abortion. because the not our business what a woman dozen with her body -- does with her body ycht men and women make that argument. over and over again they made that argument. and now the same people, mr. speaker, are making the argument and have made the argument and the president has signed it into the law of the land, now that the federal government has not no business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body but instead the same people are arguing that the federal government has every right to tell everybody in america what they can or can't do with their body. the president of the united states, with

one of the interesting features was that roe vs. wade had been decided. i went through the confirmation process, that was not a political issue. it became an issue later. the principal issue that was involved at the time was the constitutionality of the death penalty. i expected to be questioned about the death penalty when i went through the hearings, and i had made up my mind that i had not sat on in the cases or studied the issue, and i was going to say that i don't think i should answer the questions because i would wait till i read all the briefs and become familiar with it. i had a long speech made out about how often i change my mind uncases after reading briefs. but i did not get a single question about the death penalty. i did get questions when i went around and let the senators before the hearing started, i remember strom thurmond taking the his office, and i shook hands with all the people and went into his chambers. he said judge stevens, i want to talk to you. i want to talk to you about the death penalty. he said i am not going to ask you q