Distance and fall other guidelines and regulations so thank you for your patience and following those. We have here today judge jeff sutton, he flew in last night, right through the storm, and so were grateful his flight made it here safely and were able to have this event today. Judge sutton is a judge of the u. S. Court of appeals for the six inch circuit where the served since 2003. Nominated by george w. Bush. He is a former solicitor general of ohio, hes been in private practice, has clerked for several judges, including justice ask Justice Scalia, the subject of his new book. The title of the occasion today is essentialal scalia. Were all about scalia in this chapter. Judge sutton revved hi ba from William College and law degree from the ohio state university. Chair of the federal Judicial Conference Committee on the rules of practice and procedure, appointed to that position by chief justice john roberts. He has taught constitutional law and other legal sums at a number of universities and was teaching at several universities right now. One benefit to the pandemic is that we have zoom and other forms of Online Education so students are able to have judge sutton as a professor without him having to be there present in person. So, that is a tremendous benefit to the Legal Academy at large. Judge sutton, thank you for being here today and thank you for talking to us. In general, Justice Scalias influence on you individually and philosophically. Yes, sure. First, thank you, allen, for inviting me. Its great to be here live, not on zoom. So im really glad were here and being cautious and so forth. Its really i have a lot of fond enemy rid coming to montgomery, i fell since my career got start here soon after i left the ohio solicitor generals office, then attorney general bill pryor hired me to happen cases in u. S. Supreme court and happily did not yet have a solicitor general to that was my window of opportunity. Had that position been filled earlier im not sure what would have happened in my career but i was fortunate to get to know bill and so many fine people in the bam Attorney Generals Office, so fun to come here and fun to come back. Ive been knocking pull out this a lot. We have been talking notice book with other people, and someone said im starting to think Justice Scalia has become more influence shall since the died than he was while he was living. Thats an odd thing. How could that be . And what might explain the impact and why she is so central a part of the conversation but the courts, originalism and textualism, and i feel like my on path to getting to know Justice Scalia offers a little explanation. So, i theres a little out autobiographical. I came from a progressive family in new england. He first president ial election in i voted for jimmy carter. I learned about the report in the new york times. By the time i went to law school in 1987 i was apolitical. If i had leanings they would have been in a more progressive direction. Could not have told you what originalism or textualism meant when i started and maybe even by the time i graduated. I tide read robert borks book, the tempting of america and when i got a clerkship at the Supreme Court the author was justice paul, who was then a retired justice. Each retired justice gets one law clerk i was his one law quicker for that year, 199192 and you get to decide to perhaps work with another chambers, and i decided i wanted to work for Justice Scalia, which if you had known my past and background and my family that wont have been your first guess. So why is it that in 1991, i wanted to work for Justice Scalia . Well, this if the thing i think most law students, understand, reading judicial opinions as i have toed a miss and the author is usually not a lot of fun. This is where lawyers acquire the habit of drinking more coffee then is good for them. Those are not Charles Dickens novels. Caffeine gets you through. How refreshing to come across a Justice Scalia majority opinion, dissent or concurrence. They stood out for the liveliness of the writing, the honest clerks the honesty, the quest for truth. So i could have cared list if he was a textualist, constitutionalist, he seemed like fun and i wanted to learn to write like him. Its unrealistic but so be it. Try to write as close as i. Could thats how i go tot know him and why i started working him, and then it was easy to fall under his influence because his passion for getting it right, his dedication to finding the right answer, making sure youre being hospital about what is going on in the case, noting afraid to secondguess yourself and maybe even evolve on occasion, and then his passion for writing. No way you could finish a year with him and not want to be a better writer, and so much of becoming a better writer is wanting to be a better writer and you just couldnt come out of that experience without it. Its really interesting since the clerkship in 1992, almost been 30 years, that year and many times since id hear him say something, talk but a case and id have this reaction, Justice School ya, cant be right, and heed say is so forcefully which i suppose im a little contrarian to have anybody say anything forcefully makes me want to push back and i cant tell you the number of times that happened, and then is a thought our sometimes even a couple years would go by id go, oh, thats really good point. And so now in writing the introduction to this book, it wasnt hard for me to embrace textualism and originalism. I think its right. I think its the only answer to avoid destroying the federal courts and i think hes been right all along but i think going back to the point, why this influence . I think it has something to do with the power of his ideas, and his remarkable capacity to express them so well, and thats not a bad thing to know that if you hack she good ideas ideas ad learn how to express them well you might have influence. Justice kagan wrote a very kind forward and it reminds me of the importance of maintaining friendships of people with differing opinions and i wonder how Justice Scalia s competitiveness on the court. One of my jobs was to play squash with him and on the court he was very come betive, and i competitive and i still to this day was a little puzzled by it. Was not a very good lawyer at that point in my life, but forgive my pride i was a decent athlete, and i was also a lot younger, and trimmer, and it was so funny to me when we started playing squash he expected to win every time. I couldnt get over it. And then i would give him some games because he didnt like to lose, and i but what i took from that story, you might be taking from that story why would a what was he, maybe mid50s thick they can bate 30yearold person at squash when the 50s person was just a very good lawyer and the 30yearold person was a pretty good athlete and an okay lawyer. Why would he think that way . He thought he could do myth. Could do anything. If we defended the next day to play golf he did not play golf despite the Kaycee Martin decision, if he decided to take it on he would have decided to be the best at it and every time he would have thought he could do better. So when you read these opinions, this is the area we did excel, plenty of times he had very serious disagreement width Justice Kagan and Justice Ginsburg. They send longer together. On the d. C. Circuit and then the Supreme Court and you want to get a glimpse for it. Its headsnapping and jarring to read his dissent in the u. S. Versus virginia case, the case where the debate was whether they had to offer coeducation cosexual education there at vmi and that ways the fight under the 14th epidemic. Justice ginsburg writes the majority, a landmark decision, essentially saying you get rigorous scrutiny when it comes to gender classification. Justice scalia writing the lead dissent. I if all you had to look at those two things would stunow theyre good friends. Very hardhitting opinions and when i heard they were friends the year i was clocking i was a little suspicious. Maybe this is my slightly cynical side. I wondered itself if was a friendship of convenience, d. C. Relationship, where i wouldnt hurt to have friend across the aisle you scratch my back ill scratch yours, but i was wrong. They celebrated new years every year together. That is not a friendship of conveniencethats good way to ruin new years. So, they were not ruining new years. They were having a good time. And so what is going on . Why such a sincere friendship . I think there are some things they had in common that might be easy to overlook. They both born in the 30s. One is a jewish woman, both by the way from new york city. If youre borne in 1930s and decide you want to go into law you probably are think thing best you could do is maybe, maybe, get a job at one of the big firms. So they both had to break ceilings. Think that had that in commonality and the way Justice Ginsburg put the point once, they it was a selfimprovement society is the way she put it. That they both had a lot of respect for each other, as they should have, and their legal abilities, and they knew that if Justice Scalia knew if Justice Ginsburg thought there was something wrong or would push back there was probably truth he had to come to grips with. So i think they helped each. Other but i really think at bottom the real point was really came down to true affection. I know Justice Ginsburg decently, shes quite shy, in a dinner table setting, she is hard to actually hear her voice. She is not easy to get a laugh out of, and my understanding it that Justice Scalia could get her to laugh and couldnt get her to stop laughing. And so they had a a real chemistry and marty ginsburg, if you watch the movie about Justice Ginsburg and her relationship to her husband, its beautiful relationship he was an extrovert so maybe something going on there. Put my last i think the last time this happens. Maybe my second to last facetoface meeting with the justice, spring of 2015, and im in d. C. For a meeting go by the justice chambers to say hello and then after 15 minutes and he points to two dozen roses on the table and says, jeff, i have to give these roses to ruth. Its her birthday. And i go, wow, thats lot of roses. Ive been married more than 30 years and i dont think ive given a total of 24 roses to my wife. And he can be a bit of a wise guy and he responded by saying, well, jeff, you ought to try it some time. I thought that was obnoxious and i hated giving i them laword so i said, quite obnoxiously myself, what good have all these roses done you . Bogey 24 roses a year. Find any 504 case where you got her vote, and he said, with a lot of sincerity, some things are more important than votes vs and he meant it. That would have been the last roses she got from him. That was before february, he dies february 2016 and thats before her next birthday and i told her that story before the book came out and she sent me a lovely note a few weeks behalf she died saying how much she millses the roses. So that was it. That was a sincere friendship and they adored each other, they adored each others uspss. This families loved each other. Its not a bad lesson. You mentioned Justice Scalia yas writing school earlier. Justice kagan make Thursday Point when a scalia opinion was circulated the first thing she dad was drop what she would was doing and read that opinion. His writing have been operates bid friend and foe alike. Why is so the important he had this ear for language and a knack for writing. Yeah. First of all shes quite right about that phenomenon. I have been doing i was doing it ever after i left the court. I would be truth be told i read all the Court Opinions but that is the first place id good. You want to see what he would say, put i it very clearly, felt like you now was was going on. So where disthat come from . I wondered this the year i was clerk, for him. One thing wanted to get out of the year, the secret to this writing and any way to acquire it. He had some advantages. Hit father was a professor of romance languages and he spoke several languages. His mother was an educator as well. Maybe an only child of not just that family but the whole generation, a lot of love funnel ed into nino schoolarch what he wanted he got. Maybe that helped. Will say this. I was on a call with some friend the other day, and i found myself wondering, i wonder if one reason he became such a great writer is that he started out as such great speaker. So heres where im going with that. He did a lot of actioning in high school and loved theater and he loved those at the. I i think he left field the performance, the stage, might even say he could be a bit of a ham, and i will sea if you saw him speak i had the chance to see him speak many times you realize how comfortable he was on a stage and how much he liked the energy of the room, drew on the energy of the room, and just had a real capacity for pacing and sound and how it sound which wouldnt be surprising with hi background in theater. I read of his early speeches, and i might even have said the early speeches were better written than the early articles so that might suggest it. Theres something there. The other thing i might say which i i think nice to hear pitch were in law, it never got easy for him. He used to say, he hated writing but loved having written, and i think he said he hated it because he had a high standard, he knew what quality was and what it wasnt, and i also would say he is the first it tall machine american on the u. S. Supreme court, didnt want to be the last, and i suspect he worked even harder at it once he was on the bench, and if you compare his d. C. Circuit opinions to his u. S. Supreme Court Opinions, high quality throughout, no surprise, but to me theres something about some of the opinions in this book that dont have any pair throw anything he had done. So he rose to the occasion and he did work really hard on it , one other story which is consistent with your point about the ear for language as well as the eye for it on the wherein page. One year during uninstance in one case during the year i was clerk can for him with ed whatten, my cooed a for, i had given him a draft of the opinion. He worked at home and we had glovey desks and he took it home and after the kid went to build head do some work in the evening, and that day comes back the next day and did something he hadnt done before which is bring all of the clerks in to talk about the case is what i thought was going on. A little bit on edge. It was my case. And he is in a good mood and that made my somewhat optimistic and he dramatic which i takes the knoppy disk, puts into it the computer drive, principles out his sevenpage concurrence dissent and proceeds to give us a dramatic reading of it, and my first reaction i had two reactions initially. Ed said pretty negative. The first was what happened to all the good stuff id done . Except for an a here and a the there it was all gone heed taken my straw and turned into it gold if was crest fallen on that. And then perhaps connected to that initial reaction was a natural reaction of, really, who do you think you center we have things to do and we can read it. We dont need to hear you deliver it aloud, and by the way you look at if you think this is shakespeare soliloquy. Its not. This is law still. Put the real message from that experience was seeing what joy he took in having written well, and then as he delivered, paying attention to the lines, and he was writing to speak. And i think his opinions often are written to be read aloud, and so theres a lot of different ways to think pout that but those are some of them. Do you have a favorite opinion . I thought i new his opinions and was an expert on his opinions and i would come across i thought, oh, i know the key paragraph in this one,en i know where ill smile. Yeah, that was. This did remember that. But then ill come across this other paragraph and realize, oh, thats so good i never thought about that and that really anticipates the problem that developed in this other line. So in one sense my evasive answer to day what is fund but the justices writings is every encounter is a new encounter and has a freshness to it and its only a 300 page book. You can read in two sittings, and youll gist find yourself coming across things you hadnt heard him say before or blown over before. I will tell you two opinions, majority opinions, nice to actually make law. As opposed to just complaining about someone else making law. So i think two majorities he had plenty of pride in, i think quite correctly so, were crawford, thats the confrontation clause case where that crawford overrule as case called roberts which is used the balancing best to decide whether there is would confrontation clause violation, pragmatic, historical and nontextual, and suddenly crawford is in frontthem and he writes a 72 decision. Thats lot of votes film. Very originalist. He has conservatives, liberals joining him. Hes approving its a criminal procedure case that originalism doesnt inherently favor the government. Quite the opposite. In fact this one of many criminal procedures. Its so fascinating he became one of the leading criminal procedure authors of opinions that helped criminal defendants and here we have an alum of the nixon administration. That not what you would expect. So i think he liked that opinion. I loved that opinion. Its a nice opinion to illustrate that originalism is really designed to get to neutral outcomes and a rule based purchase that isnt policy or ones world views. Heller another one, 5 40, closer. Took joy in the fact that all nine member of the court engaged in the originalist inquiry. Wasnt a case where five members were doing originalism and the other four living constitutionalism, all nine were doing originalism. That meant something to him. And of course morrison versus olson one think out more hisson this independent counsel case, has all the great lines and just such wonderful lines, i like that case more for Something Else it tells you about him. It makes you realize his courage and backbone. This is the opened just his second year on the court, its an 81 decision. Chief Justice Rhenquist is closest friend on the court at the time, writes the majority, and chief Justice Rhenquist is no slouch on Administration Law and separation of powersful might have said he was the best conservative in the country and Justice Scalia is writing a hardhitting dissent in an 81 case. You read that and go, my gosh, this is not a fellow who is going along to get along. This is somebody who thinks theres a truth,ll find the truth and even. I its a close friend like ginsburg or rein quest, if didnt rhenquist, if hey thinks theyre wrong hell say so. He applied the golden rule. Do unto others as you have. The do unto you and for Justice Scalia thats what he thought. I wanted people to come back hard at him just as hard at he came at them. Not everybody apply thursday golden rule in quite the same way. The golden rule is complicated. But this is not a sermon so well move on. Its a nice segway. You talked but Justice Schools where majority opinions. Im curious but this dissenting decisions. Justice holme is called the great dissenting because of the way he wrote this dissenting opinions and im curious whether Justice Scalia might steal that title. Whyway was is important for Justice Scalia to register his opinion in a dissent. He was not someone who was going to just go along to get along. So if he thought something was wrong, that wasnt his thing. He didnt think originalism and textualism were principles of interpretation that lent themselves to compromise. He used do say, how do you compromise . You have a right answer, the only compromise is denying the right answer so thats denying the truth. So he didnt think he could do that. Thats one reason he wasnt afraid to dissent or concur. He did that, too. I dont think he liked it. I think it made him i think he was very disappointed early on to be writing dissents. So i was there maybe maybe his fifth or six year on the court. That the Abortion Case, the establishment clause graduation prayer case, let me just tell you one thing i can promise you. He was not happy to be writing those opinions. Those were devastating losses to him not so much because competition, he wanted to win, but because he didnt think they were good for the country and he respects the point. Heat one person on a ninemember court. So in one sense i dont think hed be happy with me moniker but this gets back to another way of thinking about which i think he would. Brace and learned early on the court, probably starting around that term, he realized that he wasnt just writing for other lawyers. He wasnt just writing for his colleague order the lawyers in case or the parties. He wasnt even writing for the Supreme Court bar. He realized pretty early on, may have affected hit writing style. His audience was the law student. So back to me. That was his audience. He wanted to write so that when people they couldnt take these out of the u. S. Reports. They were going to be there. If the professor wasnt teaching his dissent, it would be noted in the majority and the student could read it or they were teaching it and would have to come to grips with it. For him that was a way to feel at better about cases where he sometimes was really disappointed it came out the wrong way. Having ban judge for quite a while im such a fan of the feature of the Judicial Branch we have to explain why were doing what we are doing. Keeps us honest, disciplines us and then when we have separate concurrences or disseasons we have to answer them and i think in Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia used to say, sharpens the opinions and makes them better. And i think he did that for the court. He would have said didnt make them good enough. Good enough would have meant joining his opinion but they did make them better. But, yeah, he used to say he had annual reunions at the court would bring his clerks back once a year in the spring, the first saturday in may every year, and that clerk class would present to him what had finally become the u. S. Reports volume, but just with his opinions and each year he would tell you, oh, that was a good or bad year. What was a good year . A very thin volume because he wasnt writing a lot of dissents, concurrence, bad year, very thick volume. I happened to be there for a very thick year, so i was not a very good clerk and maybe and ed and i clerked shy point out something. Ed whalen, we clerked the same year. Thats where we got to know each other, and ed, his really been at the center of this. This is the third volume. Ed and Christopher Scalia edited the first to scalia speaks and School Gentleman on faith. The first one was speeches, generic, scalia on faith on faith and this one on law. So i only came in for this one, but ed had been Justice Scalia at one reunion came up to the two of us, and he said something at first i didnt quite understand and he goes, oh, its my knight errant, errant. Not my knight who has erredded. My knight who looked after me. And he was not referring to me. He was referring to ed whalen and now i think he just ignored me. Doesnt make me feel very good, but ed has been a testifieder of Justice Scalias works just as must back bone uncompromising and Everybody Needs a friend like that. Ed whalen had ahs been that good of a friend. Anybody. Anybody who knows follows the bench reviews, i get me news from ed before i get it from anyone else, youre year doing the same thing, complimenting him and not me. Have youve not got an sense of how sensitive i am . Well, ed merits the commit. Justice ask scalia as do you. As do you. Im making fun of myself. Justice scalia often called the founder of originalism and that sort of suggests that originalism was not a mode of jumping that existed before and i depth think thats the way Justice Scalia would have thought of it. Didnt think of himself doing anything that was knew but ther new but there are particular legal minds that influenced him, people he would refer back to that maybe were originalists before it had a name. Yeah. Thats a great question. He would a have agreed with youve. He did not invent onlyism or textualism and anybody who would say that would be missing his key point, judges had always been using originalism and tex tomb. You resolve dispute. Only the last 60 years he called them awe awe van guard interpretation and his walling to get us back to what we were doing. If you go to the initial first judicial review decisions no one is talking about a living constitution. That phrase doesnt come around for a very long time. Theyre assuming the document has a fixed meaning, why else put it in writing. Didnt sit is to music or palm it. They put it in language and language has meaning and its rare that meaning isnt meant to be fixed. So youre quite right. As to people that he admired, i think he had shared a lot withfrank and ways theyre very rigorous thickers deafblind rigorous thinkers, frank was a progress if original, helped found the aclu, the new republic, comes the court and resists this effort to be living constitutionalists, invent rights even in a direction that would favor his world view. Just read his decisions and anguished dissent in barnett. The flag salute case, and Justice Scalia mixes in ford administration, republican, conservative world view, tough on crime come inside and hes coming to opposite place because, again, following the law where it takes you. So, i think theres lot of overlap there i dont i dont have a sense of how much he relied on frank for opinions a lot, so that says a lot. He filled the same seat as Justice Jackson, a natural and rhenquist was in that seat before he became chief. So maybe affinity, Justice Jackson is such a lovely writer and of course Justice Scalia really cared but his writing. And jackson you would call more of an originalist, maybe not as disciplined as scalia. Those would be the two key ones. Everybody is going to like holmes for a few things and be pretty skeptical of others. But probably the answer. Was we site their Justice Amy Coney barrett has just confirmed. And im curious about your on nomination and confirmation process did you ever talk to Justice Scalia about that . He was i believe unanimously confirmed, so a little different time. But curious, what was your process like and what did you ever get anied a vase from Justice Scalia or did he have any comments about that . That would be unhelpful and he made it i think even worse hitch got confirmed 980. To the u. S. Supreme court. Thats a high one. And im in the Junior Varsity court, 5241. 52 voted. The like going for a d minus. Its so fast mating. Justice ginsburg was 963. Thats 93, so boy, things have change it. And i dont know what to say. I will say what Justice Scalia would say. One of the point experted in in the excerpted in his book is dissending casey, the 92 Abortion Case and most of the opinion has nothing to do with abortion. Its saying if were going to embrace the idea that five members of a life ten youred court of a ninemember lifetenured court guests to decide what rights that are mott nexted in the constitution ought to have constitutional protection, we are really asking for it when it comes to pollitt siding the court, and this is a crown jewel of american government, the kind of court that got us through brown vs. Board of education and other important milestones in American History and they bill will be time we need the court and need the people to think of that as an if a political, neutral court. So, that was the warning. A warning shot. The canary in the coal mind and you look at our last president ial election, by too many accounts to deny, it turned on enough americans treating a vote for president of the United States as a proxy to fill one seat on a ninemember court. And the rest of your life reading 1776 and you wont find anybody saying they reason we break from england is so we can create a life tenet youred cut that can maykey digses for society. That would have been laughable. We would have stayed with britain. These things happen by accretion and over tile, put we do have to wake up and realize that we its really important for the court to be engaged in something that the American People can say is law, that is based on principles out their own policy preferences, outside their own world views, are grounder inside something the principle, the people did and thats why justice skill ya pushed no hard for only jim. The people that ratified the constitution. The people, the represent tide that had these particular stat statues written they way they were written and judges are supposed to honor the compromises and leave it at that, and people dont like it, you know, as he said in the vmi case, theyre free to change question usually do that dramatically. Theres a democratically, an old george jones music son, were in alabama, called who is going to fill their shoes. And forgive me. Well, i i actually like neil young which is the worst thing to say here. I wont say i like all of his songs. I wont sing it. But who is going to fill Justice Scalias shoes. Is there anyone out there who can fill the shoes. Thats a great question and theres a really good answer. No one should try to be like Justice Scalia. Accomplish he wouldnt want anyone to try to be like Justice Scalia. He and Justice Ginsburg would say the same thing. Theyre not in control. They dont own these seats did the betts they could with their time on the court. You cant deny they left views how to handle prior conflicts, and its time for somebody else to thats really healthy. Frank, a terrific judge only the second circuit, gave a graduation speech a few years ago, as a college, i dont think all of them are going law school and they got this graduation speech only about law. A great speech, though, and one of the points he made was you could put nine clones on the u. S. Supreme court, nine supposed people just like Justice Scalia, and theyd still disagree. Lawyers are lawyers, and some of the stuff is hard stuff and youre theyre going to find ways to separate them. Look at the fdr court. He put eight members on the court. The only one he didnt put on was stone and he was a fellow traveler. They called the scorpion court. You cant be too sure about so the next Justice Scalia wont happen. He did lay down some markers and maybe this is the very best thing he did as a judge and maybe the thing tried to do the most in my capacity as a judge is he let the world know what his score card was. Which is another way of saying he let the world know how he should be judged and thats what matters. In other words he writes a dissent or majority and you can look at it and say, thats following textualively, thats following originalism, or you look at it and go, well, wait a sect. That doesnt look as originalist as im used to seeing and that becomes a fair part, point of criticism. And so were going to have we have in justices, all be having new justices and they may or may not have score cards. Hope they do if they do and Justice Barrett says she is an originalist and a textualist and i strongly suspect she 0 would have no problem with the American People judging her decisions on that score card. Whether they like them, thats the really misleading thing in american law, that what you like is always in the constitution, and that is not how this works. Whats in the constitution is easy to figure out. Raved it and the 27 amendments and some some things are there and some arent and if what you like isnt there, put it in a statute or amend the constitution but you cant just say i like something and therefore it must be in the constitution, and id like to think that the courts getting more and more focused on that and thats healthy, but theres innovate going to be another Justice Scalia and i would strongly urge nip who is trying to be another Justice Scalia that now is the time stop. Unless, unless the goal is to become a better squash player. Because that would be doable. I have one final. I have one final question. Which is the pert football conference, big ten or sec . Oh. Injury youre in alabama. You know, its really funny. We in the big~10, and the sec, think we need at selfawareness here. They do not care for news the fall and maybe even that it too much. They dont care when we talk about college football. So someone outside of these conferences, if theyve get the question, which do you prefer, the sec or the big ten, the answer would be Something Like this. Oh, this reminds me of world war ii and the battle of stall lynn stalin grad, would you rather see lose, nazis or the communists and thats a hard question. That is the Vantage Point of the rest of america. Now im not the rest of america this is an easy one. Of course the big ten. The sec im trying to thing of a polite way to say this but im past being mid. The zack isnt a johnny come lately but the big ten has been doing this for centuries and you guys have been doing this for decades. I will say, if you measure it not even by decades bit years you have been doing pretty well, i must acknowledge that, but at ohio state can think of one game against an sec team that we did pretty well. Im a guest. I did hear a lot of ohio state coaches saying over the im a very big ohio state football fan. The difference between whether im happy or sad on a sunday. And so im a very big football fan. One of these obnoxious fans. Watched a lot of ohio state football coaches the last couple of decades saying things already brought modeling the program after sec programs. Speed want an issue for a while, and they so, thats a compliment. Thats the last nice thing im saying about the sec. You signed a book for me once, war eagle and ill show that to judge pryor. We wont enjoy that. He wont enjoy that. If there are questions quarterback. I school my own question. A lot of people from state government, and i worked with they state Attorney Generals Office in alabama, and one question you might ask is whether Justice Scalia had any thoughts about one of hi hobby horses state constitutions, or i it could ask a slightly difference way. Areas where Justice Scalia and Justice Brennan agreed . Justice brennan kind of leading liberal for decade. The flag burning case is one where Justice Brennan wrote and Justice Scalia joint. One that my be surprising is Justice Brennan 1977 wrote a landmark article but the importance of state constitutions, and something most people dont realize is that Justice Scalia supported that as well and his last majority opinion for the court, a case called kansas vs. Carr he made the exact point. States free to experiment with state tugses and often do. When Justice Brennan and Justice Scalia agree on something, thats a something where the diagrams dont overlap and when they overlap you might be close to a biblical truth. Thats likely right on. And so to me thats a good way of pointing out that state constitutions are worth remembering and i think people in alabama might feel thats true. Thank you for bringing that up. Youve done a great job bringing state constitutionalism to the forefront of Legal Education and reminding boom how important the people how important the decentralization process and how important the state constitutions and are the different remedies can be sought under the state constitution and thats an important work and i personally appreciate your work in that regard so thank you. And i guess i will close us out by thanking all of you for coming today. A number of judges and Public Officials and our attorney general, solis at the general, thank you all for coming. Im always encouraged by your presence here and your interest in the program so thank you very much and i look forward to seeing you, soon, and judge sutton, thank you for coming down. A round of applause. My pleasure. Make sure you go online, if you havent already, and buy the essential schoola. Youll find imcompelling reading and will enjoy it. Thank you very much. A book covers president obamas early critical career, road to white house and part of the first time. The books publisher has presented 3. 4 million copies for north america, and an additional 2. 5 million for the international market. Publishers weekly spoke to editors, agents and other publishing executives about a potential president ial memoir by pressured. Men suggested he would second on advance the rivals the 65 emergency that president obama and former first lady received. Mage haberman is writing a become on her 20 years of covering president trump. The book will be published by Penguin Press and will be available in early 2022. Also in thus self of americas larger publishers reported sales gains for the third quarter. Simon and schuster saw a 28 increase and hardcourt roles by 15 . Harper collins a 13s jump in sales. And npd says James Patterson was the best selling author of the last decade, total sales higher than stephen king and john gresham combined. You can watch past premiers anytime at booktv. Org. Good evening, and welcome to nows live online author event with greenlight book store. Im chelsea from greenlight and we are thrilled to host this event with perri class and her new book, good times be born, how science and Public Health gave children a future. Shell be talking with Andrew Solomon so youre in for an excellent time. Just want to say a huge thanks to perri, andrew and