Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV 20150315

Will be doing a call in program with cspan said he cannot sign books until 4 00 then he will have a very short window before he passed to catch his flight t consign books from 4 00 through 4 20 p. M. I hope you can catch him then. [laughter] that is at the bookstore attend on the ball at the university of arizona bookstore they are purchased at that location if you are enjoying the festival we encourage you to become a friend of the festival your taxdeductible donation allows to offer programming free of charge learn more about friends of the festival benefits that the information with our at tucson book festival website at of respect for the author and fellow audience members please turn off yourself comes at this time if he thinks you have please double check to make sure it is actually off. With that i am very pleased to introduce the founding dean of the university of California School of law which the six short years as one of the finest law schools in the country. A prolific scholar a legendary teacher of constitutional law and related subjects he himself argued many cases before the United States federal courts including the Supreme Court. A frequent public commentator on issues and perhaps the most gifted translator legalese into plain english. [laughter] which the public oppose him a huge debt of gratitude. Caller. Thank you. Let me start by thanking the tucson festival of books for having me and for all of you for coming it is enormously gratifying for me as an author but to see so many people on a beautiful afternoon coming to hear about the Supreme Court and the constitution is wonderful. [applause] thankyou. I will tell a story that the book begins with. I was teaching with acacia were very familiar with that involves a woman born 1906 and Charlottesville Virginia with a normal childhood show to local Public Schools through junior high and always received passing grades. Her father left her mother her mother was destitute and had no choice but to place the girls in foster homes. When she was 17 she was raped by her foster fathers nephew became pregnant as a result. The foster parents were embarrassed by her pregnancy her foster parents had institutionalized called of homes for epileptics and the feeble minded. She gave birth to a daughter in soon after virginia began to in voluntarily have her sterilized. Virginia adopted a eugenics what a short hearing was held. She was given the i. Q. Test which was the earliest form testified she had a low iq. Many years later that harvard professor found carry and gave further career version and it was in the normal range. Another witness testified at her hearing that the social worker had agreement carries baby then six months alone and said something didnt see a normal about the baby. Just as the state of virginia ordered a tubal ligation be performed to be surgically sterilized. The lawyer took the case to the Supreme Court it should have been an easy case. After all the constitution and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment she had done nothing wrong. Even by that point in history with the word liberty in the constitution and translated fundamental rights surely one of the rights is a right to procreate but the Supreme Court eight one decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled against carey. With the most revered jurist one of the most extensive language anywhere the Justice Holmes said three generations of imbeciles are enoughs. 1 4 her the sterilization. 60,000 people in the United States or in voluntarily surgically sterilized as the results of the of movement and the Supreme Court decision. I was teaching this and my knees students understandably were outraged by the case. The night after the class are realized i had been making excuses what the Supreme Court had done but all too often in my teaching or by writing a was making excuses. But if i thought about it critically to realize the Supreme Court has often failed at the most important times and wanted to write a book that said that. [laughter] host what d. C. Is the purpose to have a constitution in the first place . Guest i think the constitution is an effort with a document that is difficult to change. What makes it different from all other laws is in a statute passed by congress can be changed by congress any ordinance by the city council can be changed by the city council but the constitution it takes threequarters or twothirds of the states chancery quarters and houses of congress so why as a nation and sees itself as a democracy want to be governed by a doctor mitt the documents so difficult to change . Those who wrote the constitution do that there would be tremendous temptation is to compromise the precious values they do from World History that a crisis is the time to centralize power so they wanted to put a separation of powers into the document that in times of crisis there would be a of prescience a one hour most precious values in the document so in this sense it is the elaborate edifice to make sure the shortterm passions dont lose sight of longterm values. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court and the constitutional system part. To enforce the constitution also to ensure uniformity of federal law but i think the preeminent purpose is to enforce the constitution. The question i asked in the book all of you is how has the Supreme Court done over the course of American History to enforce the constitution . Host the most important constitutional issue writeup until the civil war was slavery. How would you grade that handling of that . America is it possible to give the f dash f. [laughter] until the 13th amendment that was ratified to abolish slavery not a single Supreme Court case expanded the rights of slaves every Supreme Court decision progressively and forced the institution of slavery and protected the rights of slaveholders. I dont believe on its own it could have eliminated slavery but it could help to chip away and it did not have to with dread scott purses sanford to say that slaves our property and that is born in the United States are not citizens. Dread scott was a slave who was taken from the state of missouri he brought a lawsuit in federal court been taken to a slave state to a free state was made a free person. The Supreme Court have ruled against them but instead said the matter where they are born our property but not citizens so they cannot sue the allows citizens of one state for the citizens of another but then they went further to say the missouri compromise was unconstitutional this was the key compromise that dealt with with the Louisiana Purchase specifying which states could be slave states or free states and the Supreme Court said the missouri compromise had the effect to take the slaves away from slave owners and violated the constitution and helped to precipitate the civil war. After birds congress adopted in the states ratified 13, 14 and 15th amendments. Guest those amendments radically changed the nature of society, government. The 13th amendment prohibited involuntary servitude also with laws to enforce it. The 14th amendment begins by overturning dread scott verses samper that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are United States citizens and. Also says the state deprives life liberty or property without due process and it can deny any person a coproduction and this is the first time the constitution would ever directly implied state and local governments than the 15th amendment adopted 1870s says the right to vote cannot be denied on race or previous condition of servitude. Host how would you grade the Supreme Court early interpretations without a mandatory curve . [laughter] guest i would give f or f. Why . Unless you are lawyers she probably never heard of there first Supreme Court case ever interpret the amendments 1870s three called the slaughterhouse cases. Louisiana adopted a law to give a monopoly to a slaughterhouse to the louisiana legislature. Some butchers who did not want to workfare brought the challenge in the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and in doing so narrowly interpreted every provision of the amendment and for example, the Supreme Court said the equal protection clause could be used only to protect African Americans from discrimination. But that is not what it says this is no person but because of that case not and tell 1971 the Supreme Court found anything other than racist to violate the constitution . Then for the first time when sex discrimination was unconstitutional with disabled opinion of the slaughterhouse cases the Supreme Court effectively had a provision wrote that out of the constitution when provisional mention no state can deprive any citizen of the privileges or immunities of United States citizenship to make sure states could not deprive people of their most fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court said federal courts cannot use the privilege immunities clause for state and local laws deemed unconstitutional it was five years old plan and the constitution the Supreme Court said no. Since the slaughterhouse cases there is a new one Supreme Court decision that has not been ever ruled that uses that privileges and immunities clause so what they did was projected a few years later that is rarely get to 1896 with plessey verses ferguson the Supreme Court held a separate but equal as constitutional that the law requires racial separation is permissible because of that jimcrow covered every aspect of southern life to imposing apartheid to so much of the United States. Host another charge is one that has failed with a crisis. Where some of the of worst decisions that took place . Why have a constitution . To make sure in a time of crisis of shortterm passionist to not lose sight of longterm values. One example the worst Supreme Court cases in American History of 1944. During world war ii 110,000 japanese americans aliens and citizens and 70 thousands were routed from their homes and placed what roosevelt called concentration camps. Race alone was used to determine who would be free and who would be incarcerated. Of japanese families were housed literally in horse stalls they should have been an easy case for the Supreme Court. Grace alone should never be used to determine who is free or incarcerated it never can be used to determine who is a danger. Nonetheless the Supreme Court in the six three decision upheld that decision of japanese americans justice black wrote the opinion for the court and he said war is about our chip this is just a hardship that japanese americans have to bear. Given the book you said dissent of the case as a rough paraphrase of editing is fundamental to our system is the idea that gilts is personal rather than inherited. The later jackson rates mcadoo not suggesting should interference the army to carry out the task is the people ever let command fall into unscrupulous hands the courts wielded no power equal to its restraint. Was there anything the Supreme Court could have realistically done to stop the internment of japaneseamericans . Guest it is decided 1844. At this point the tide had turned no longer fear of a Japanese Invasion on the west coast for glenn not saying that is justified but i think it would have been so easy for the Supreme Court to say that this was unconstitutional. Remember Robert Jackson was attorneygeneral of the United States under Franklin Roosevelt and even he said it was unconstitutional and what particular a troubles him is the decision for the space like of loaded gun to be used for the government and the future to take away liberties in wartime and i think that is what we have seen since september 11. Host another dark chapter in the Supreme Court history as you tell if it was the first 35 years of the 20th century period that professor is often called the of what in our era. How did the court golan . From the late 19th century the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional over 200 federal, state, and local laws that were designed to protect workers and consumers. Congress passed a law that prohibited the shipment of goods made by child labor. It wasnt even that protected it prohibited children under 14 from being used and for children over 14 they could not work more than 10 hours a day or 60 a Week Congress did not prohibit child labor but just said if they are used the goods cannot be shipped with interstate commerce clearly timed its authority to article one among the states. Nevertheless it was declared is unconstitutional and said that congress could not regulate commerce in this way. How many children were maimed or injured or even died as a result . This is an example when states tries to get minimumwage or the maximum our laws were declared unconstitutional. And congress tried to protect consumers it was declared unconstitutional when congress tried to regulate Agricultural Farm subsidies it was declared unconstitutional. It is like president franklin proposed to the Court Packing up for a long period of time 1895 through 1936 the Supreme Court designed all of these as unconstitutional. So i the failures seemed to consist of failing to protect minorities against oppression by popular majorities but it seems to be the opposite the Supreme Court for its though will of the democratic majorities that in each of these laws were supported protecting consumers or children subjected to horrible working conditions. When should the court stand up to popular majorities or when shouldnt step back and differ . Guest that is the basic question of did a constitutional law thinking about the constitution. When do we want the court to defer to the political process or stop the process . That is the key difference between liberals and conservatives. To examples. Their recent. Tuesday june 25th, 2013 the Supreme Court to five four declared unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights act of 1965. The five conservative justices wrote the majority the liberals resented it is a provision that in 2006 congress extended 25 years almost unanimously 98 o was only 303 no votes in the house. It is hard to imagine this congress being so close to unanimous but yet the five justices declared unconstitutional the critical provision to usurp the states rights of congresss power. The liberal justices said deferred to congress his judgment it is unnecessary for Voting Rights. The next day june 26, 2013 the Supreme Court five four declared unconstitutional Section Three of the defense of marriage act federal law marriage had to be between a man and woman. The liberal justices plus Justice Kennedy the four conservative justices dissented say we need to defer to congress. [laughter] it cuts both ways isnt it interesting on tuesday it is the conservatives and we will not differ to congress on wednesday the liberals want to defer to congress only kennedy was the majority in both cases. Both liberals and conservatives want to differ and sometimes dont so of the agreement should be when. I think the constitution exists to protect fundamental rights in times of crisis you cannot leave the protection of the minority to a the majority. I think it has a very special role to enforce the constitution for minorities that cannot use the process to protect fundamental rights. In other areas we should give a great deal of deference to the political process to democracy. Host you talk about the Roberts Court. What is his background and his contribution in his role as chief justice . Guest he grew of request indiana his father was an executive in the Steel Company and he grew up in a privileged family. He went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School and was a 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 Generals 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 over employees and consumers and all of us. The Roberts Court has very much close to the courthouse door to those who are injured. To illustrate of opec an example from the book and might surprise you. Did you know, if a person is injured from taking a generic drug that person cannot sue the generic drug company . Not for failure to warn, not for the design defect lot of federal or state court that is resolved to roberts Court Decisions in 2011 and 2013 for quickly tell you about the latter case. The woman in New Hampshire was given a prescription for the pain reliever. Was filled with the generic form of the drug and she took it as prescribed. She suffered a rare horrific but unknown side effect twothirds of her body burden blistered she is permanently blind and was put in a permanent state of a coma and then to say there was a design defect the Supreme Court ruled five four that makers of generic drugs cannot be sued for design defect for failure to warn. Had she taken the brandname version then she could have. This matters because according to the fda over 80 percent of all prescriptions are filled with generic drugs ever is a generic equivalent over 90 percent of the time the prescription is filled. The robber is Court Decision has the enormous victory to the pharmaceutical injury industry but a huge loss to us. Host the previous case is a preemption case as some of the other pro Business Case is so how did they get a wrong . Guest if federal law and state law conflicts federal law wins. Article six says the constitution is the supreme law of the land and in technical terms tread federal law on one hand state law on the other it was preempted but what is interesting is it is a drug that is often prescribed for those with diabetes or other conditions to speed digestion and it is now known a significant percentage of college users users, 29 percent will suffer a horrible irreversible neurological side effects. And now has a black box warning to a different women took the drug for a long period to suffer the side effect. They sued the drug company that they fail to adequately warn consumers. Shes a man that was meant to protect consumers, not to lead to injuries were they cant recover. The majority has two alternatives. Theres a third. The company could choose not to sell that drug. If it chooses to to sell it than to compensate those who are injured. Another series of transient cases decided by the Roberts Court involves something called the federal arbitration act. What is the federal arbitration act and why should the rest of us why should nonlawyers or anybody else care about it . Sure. The federal arbitration act was adopted in 1925. It says the contracts in interstate commerce that have an arbitration clause shall be enforced unless they are revocable under state law. Let me give you a concrete example where this comes up and then i will answer your question directly about why it matters to all of us. At t was advertising free cell phones for those who signed up for service. The concepts in ons and married couple went to get their free cell phones. They like all of us had to sign an agreement. My guess is like most of us they didnt read the agreement they were signing. They were surprised when they got their first monthly statement. They were each charged dirty 2. 80 in sales tax. They believe that at t promised free cell phones so it should have to bear those those costs. They decided they want to sue at t for fraud. It was a classaction suit great at t said theres an arbitration clause in the agreement that you signed. It says if you have any dispute you have to got arbitration and he cant be part of a classaction. But the california Supreme Court had ruled in the discover bank case of arbitration clauses are not enforceable in california in a routine consumer contract. The california Supreme Court said no one is where these clauses. There is no agreement to these clauses so the federal court of appeals said the concept c. Ons when. This is a closet is revocable. The Supreme Court 54 report reversed the decision. Justice scalia talked about the evils of class actions. Class actions terrorize business business, force business to settle claims of arbitration clause has to be enforced. The conceptions cannot bring a classaction not even in arbitration. Justice breyer in his dissent said the reason when a class actions in situations like this where a large number of people each lose a small amount of money no one is going to sue or go to arbitration for 32. 80 so why does it matter to all of us . Arbitration clauses are increasingly ubiquitous. They were found in Employment Contracts, consumer contracts and even in medical contracts. Not that long ago i went to see a new eye doctor for the first time to the receptionist gave me a big stack of papers to fill out in the middle there was a former is asked to sign that if i had any dispute with the doctor arising out of the treatment i could not see the doctor didnt have to go to our arbitration. I asked the receptionist at the doctor would still seem if i didnt sign the form and she said she didnt know. Nobody ever asked her that question before. That doctor did see me but i know many physicians will not see patients unless they sign arbitration agreements come in other words unless they give up their right to sue in court. Around the same time i bought a new dell computer. As you know when you use a computer or tablet like an ipad or a phone for the first time you have to click that you read the terms and agree to them. For the ipad the terms are 46 singlespaced pages long. I just click a green use the machine but this is why i decided to read the terms. Sure enough there was a paragraph that said if i had any dispute arising out of the computer i could not do dell and it have to go to arbitration but i wrote dell a letter saying i did not agree and in him they agreed i could sue them in court if we had a dispute. [applause] delta. Writeback but the computer still works. And i dont mean by telling that true story to undercut the point point. Arbitration clauses are pervasive if they take away the ability people to access the their right to have their day in court. Here today in the many portions of the book we have not yet had a chance to discuss them probably wont have a chance to discuss due to our limited time you paint a pretty bleak picture but there are some bright spots in the book. Can you tell us about what you regard as on the Supreme Courts greatest successes . I dont mean to say that the Supreme Court always is wrong. I chose my words in the book very carefully and saying the Supreme Court is often the most important times the most important tasks. Brown bee board of education on may 17, 1954 were the Supreme Court held that separate but equal has no place in American Public education overruling plessy versus ferguson at least with education and ushering the end of jim crow laws. Yet i also believe the Supreme Court could have done so much more than it did in bringing about school desegregation. Think about american Public Schools today. Separate but not equal and becoming increasingly separate. I put up great deal of blame on that on the Supreme Court. I applaud the Supreme Courts decision in United States versus nixon won in 1974 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president s claim of executive privilege to not allow him to keep the white house tapes secret. Mix and produce the tapes when he learned from them that nixon committed a crime, obstruction of justice telling the fbi not to investigate the watergate breakin because it was a cia matter. If we hadnt have the Supreme Court there to enforce separation of powers than the key check or checks and balances would have been lost. I applaud the Supreme Courts decision from june 26 of 2013 the United States versus Windsor Holding section 3 of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional and im hopeful late june of this year the Supreme Court will say state laws that prevent Marriage Equality violate the constitution and and have the same right to equal dignity and love and commitment that heterosexuals have eyes had. A cynical reader might think you like the Supreme Court was liberal and dislike the Supreme Court with its conservative. How do you respond to that . [laughter] but as my examples dont fit into that pattern. Lets begin where we started our conversation. I know of no one liberal or conservative who would disband the Supreme Court decision with regard to slavery like in dred scott. I know no one who would defend the Supreme Courts decision in plessy versus ferguson. Their few today who would defend the their few who would defend the Supreme Courts decision in that child rape cases. Brown versus board of education was unanimous decision. It was a liberal or conservative. United states versus nixon was a unanimous decision. It was not liberal or conservative you think about all those examples where liberals and conservatives would agree both to the failures into successes what im arguing overall is not ideological. Yeah are cases where there are ideological disagreements. Citizens united versus the federal Election Commission which i believe is a terrible mistake by the Supreme Court but i think i can make a strong case against the Supreme Court just focusing on cases where liberals and conservatives agree. You say a number of times in the book that you think on balance in the Supreme Court has made things worse rather than better. Would we be better off without Supreme Court . No, though i have to tell you i spent a lot of time pondering that as i was writing this book. There are constitutional scholars who believe we would be better off without Supreme Court with the power to strike down federal state and local actions. A very perceived as professor at Harvard Law School wrote a book called taking the constitution away from the court saying we should no longer have judicial review. Larry cramer wrote a book called for popular constitutionalism. He is the dean of Stanford Law School in which he says we should and judicial supremacy and yet as i reflect on it i believe that the Supreme Court got it right in marbury versus madison in 1803. They are the Supreme Court said the constitution exists to limit government. There are limits on those limits are meaningless unless they are enforce enforced. Without the court they will often go on enforced. I spent almost 40 years now representing prisoners including some on death row. They represent one time a detainee that they represent a homeless man in United States Supreme Court. A realism that for my clients use the courts are nothing. Criminal defendants, prisoners Homeless People rarely will win in a legislative process. One is the last time a state legislature adopted a law to expand the rights of criminal dependence . When was the last time a state legislature in its own passed a law to increase the rights of prisoners . So even though these groups they often lose in court for people like my client is really the courts are nothing. Are the benefits to people who like your clients were some of the cost you identify in a book on the cost to people like ms. Believe this if that was the plaintiff was the plaintiffs name in the plea this case and the children who were subjected to the conditions, the horrible working conditions of child labor during the years and so on and so forth . The honest answer is i dont know. I dont know how to add up all of the instances where the court make society worse than without the court compared all the instances where the court make Society Better and the 2a them. I would know how to identify all the benefits and costs let alone how to weigh the benefits and costs. I believe we need a court to enforce the constitution and the key is to think of ways to make the court better as an institution less likely to make mistakes in the future. Please join me in thanking professor cherinsky. And our wonderful moderator for his questions. We have about 15 minutes for questions from the audience. There are mike sent a child and i would encourage you to please keep your questions as brief as possible so we can get to as many people as possible. If you would line up behind a mikes i will point to one side of the room and then the other. You point out that the court got it wrong but at that time there were many states that were passing laws or it in voluntary and posted for quite a while. The last one i believe was rescinded by North Carolina in 1975, 70 something rather. Since it became clear that states were backing away from those why is it not possible for the Supreme Court to go back to that decision and say this was a bad decision bikes we overruled it ourselves. Its implicit in this question and you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled buck versus valeo. Its overruled in 1942 and skinner versus oklahoma. That involved oklahoma eugenics law that said person three times convicted of a crime involving moral purpose it would be sterilized. The right to procreate is a fundamental right. Laws that provide for involuntary sterilization are unconstitutional. What happened in the 15 years between buck versus bell in 1927 in skinner versus oklahoma in 1972 . Obviously the nazi movements eugenics cause the United States to no longer be palatable. You mightve seen recently virginia passed a law directing compensation to those who were voluntarily surgically sterilized. Its a symbolic gesture. Most of those people are no longer live in no money can restore the inability to have children but i hope theres a day the Supreme Court says skinner versus oklahoma implicitly impede the court explicitly overruled buck versus bell. Will you share your view on the constitutionality under article iii of the federal arbitration act and the likelihood of the Supreme Court might decided that issue reaches reaches . I will answer simply and quickly. I think this is a very proarbitration of the Supreme Court. Arbitration tremendously favors business over those who were injured by business. Why . Because business doesnt want cases to go before juries. Business perceives that juries are proplaintiff or proproin favor of those who are injured. An arbiter is somebody who is likely to be displayed by emotions. Also its important that business gets to strike those who are arbiters as to consumers but individuals who want to make the income as arbiters notepad if they develop a pattern of business they will no longer be employed to do it so theres a subtle bias. One way in which the Roberts Court is being probusiness is to systematically rule in favor of attrition selecting the court will consistently uphold arbitration rejects constitutional challenges. Thank you. Could you address the issues in the arizona case before the Supreme Court right now regarding redistricting a vote of the people . The case was just argued in the Supreme Court about 10 days ago. Its Arizona State legislature the arizona redistricting commission. Arizona i think wisely adopted an initiative to take districting progression of districts out of the hands of the legislature and give it to an independent commission. California followed arizonas lead in the california has created an independent district for state legislative districts. In fact i shared an elected commission and we put him back in the late 90s and independent commission. Otherwise the Political Party that controls the legislature draws districts to maximize their seats for that party. Computer programs are sufficiently sophisticated. There can be an enormous variance between the amount the Political Party state for state and the number of districts bearable to control. I strongly favor independent district commissions paid arizona legislators brought a challenge this thing article i of the constitution says that the legislature of the stage to set the time, place and manner of state elections and they say therefore you cant give that to a districting commission. The United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit upheld the arizona law. It said legislature refers to the political process of the state. Its not just the legislature itself. Besides that look at the language of the constitution that the legislature should know the time, place and manner of elections. To me that doesnt say anything about districting and i think its permissible to give districting to an independent commission. When i first heard of this case i thought the challenge was frivolous. I thought it was so clear that the people unless they wanted to do this they should be able to. The conservatives would most like this because this is after all a state choosing parts up in the people of the state choosing. Its clear from the oral arguments 10 days ago that the most conservative vote to strike us down i dont know whether majority is going to be on the case. Its not possible to solve an oral argument but an independent commission for districting is a key, its progress towards key government and i think it would be a shame if the court takes that away from the states in their ability to do this. [applause] you have made the case against the Supreme Court. How do we fix fix it . [laughter] thats the last chapter of the book. The last chapter before the conclusion i hope you all get the book and read it. Let me quickly because im getting more questions, i list many reforms that i think together could make a real difference. It would change the way justices are picked and merit selection of justices were a think a president can create an independent Commission Democrat and republican say i wanted to send me names and out i promise to pick your names are asked for additional names. We need to change the confirmation process in the senate to make it meaningful. I strongly favor 18 year nonrenewable term limits. [applause] i think we need to change the way the court communicates. I believe there should be cameras in every Supreme Court proceeding. [applause] the ethical standards that apply to Federal District court in federal court of appeals judges do not apply to Supreme Court justices. We should apply the same ethical worlds to the Supreme Court justices as we do other judges. We should also make it that no justice gets to decide whether you are accused. Those are just some of the reforms in the nexttolast chapter but i think i can make the case that together these are steps that may have prevented mistakes in the past. During the American Civil War lincoln jailed several of his critics and the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the decision so in a time of war if the president of the supreme Supreme Court disagreed that the Supreme Court actually have the ability to defend their rights . Es is the answer to your question but the history is somewhat but not completely accurate. You are absolutely right that during the civil war lincoln jailed his critics in lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus so his critics couldnt come to court. I was clearly unconstitutional. But it wasnt declared unconstitutional until the ex parte milligan case after the lincoln was no longer live. I believe that the court could have declared it unconstitutional. Is there a chance that a president could ignore a Supreme Court ruling . Sure there is but i believe the Supreme Court has so much institutional credibility over such a long period of time but that is unlikely to happen. Richard nixon initially said he was going to disappear disobey the Supreme Court ordered to release the tapes and he was told by the Republican Leaders that he should not do that but he should comply with the law. So yes theres a danger of president s of the finance in the Supreme Court but thats not a reason for the Supreme Court not to enforce the constitution. You you just touched on this but why are the Supreme Court justices the only justices and federal, Appeals Court that do not have to follow the canons of judicial ethics . I think its wrong. That is just the way the law as written written. Federal district court, federal court of appeals judges have have to meet ethical rules or they dont just apply to Supreme Court justices. Also when i alluded to this very quickly now theres a motion to a Supreme Court justice be disqualified is left to that justice to determine it. No one should be a judge for himself or herself really got to come up with a different procedure for it. Im going to stick with this line of readers since all of you have been in line. Thank you. Do you think the Supreme Court was the correct place to take the issue of who won that election, gore v. Bush . No but for technical and not obvious reason. The question up what was the question of florida law. Even assume that the Supreme Court was right that counting uncounted ballots without preexisting standards violated equal protection. There were two possible things to do, create the standards. It would be easy to do. How many corners of the chad had to be attached and pick whatever number you want and you got it or stop the counting of the ballots which to do with the question of florida law. There is no doubt liberals and conservatives would agree to that. The law is very clear and has been from the beginning of United States that state law is left to state courts to decide. Its not for the United States Supreme Court to decide. Questions are purely state law. What i think the Supreme Court got wrong in gore bush v. Gore was they sent it back to the Supreme Court discussed borderline that discuss bush v. Gore in the book. Much of our discussion this afternoon has been on the arbitration system and the arbitration clause. Could you describe that process and a little bit more detail so maybe we might understand that . Sure. Anytime theres a contract the contract can say that rather than go to court the parties agreed they will go to an arbiter. The arbiters are private individuals. Its not a judge. There is the American Arbitration Association. There are groups of arbiters. You are a high, a lawyer or nonlawyer could be designated as an arbiter and the contract would specify how the arbiters decided. Let me give you an example of the Supreme Court called circuit city versus adams. Do you remember circuit city . Adams applied for a job there. On the back of his application in small print that said if he had any dispute was circuit city he would have to go to an arbiter and couldnt go to court. Who reads all the small print in an application for a job . A few years later after working at circuit city he had a discrimination claim against circuit city and he sued them in california state courtbased on california law. The United States Supreme Court ruled 54 no. He edited the contract was circuit city because on the back of his application is set up a good arbitration. So whether its an Employment Contract or a consumer contract or medical contract if people agreed to give up their right to good go to court and go to private arbiter instead they are then bound to do that. Arbiters decisions are generally not published. They are very difficult to get an arbiters decisions overturned and by so aggressively enforcing arbitration agreements the Roberts Court closed the courthouse door to all of us when we are injured. Im afraid we are out of time unfortunately. Thank you all for attending the session. Dont forget to become a friend of the festival to ensure that the festival remains a free event. Additionally all participants are asked to exit the event quickly so we can get to the next program on time. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] you are watching booktvs live coverage of 2015 tucson festival of the book held on the campus of the university of arizona. That was Erwin Chemerinsky talking about his most recent book, the case against the Supreme Court. A couple of years ago he wrote a book called the conservative assault on the constitution pity can see the numbers on the screen. If youd like to join us for a call in with professor chemerinsky 202 is area code 7488200 for those of you in the east and central timezones 7488201 for the mountain and pacific timezones. Professor chemerinsky still chatting with the audience as you can see. He will be joining us in just a minute. After that after we are done with our callin program theres another panel here this afternoon and that his contributors to the nation magazine. Representative Raul Grijalva who is head of the progressive caucus in the congress, he will be on that panel along with Katha Pollitt who has written a book called pro reclaiming abortion rights and also leave fang who has written a book called machine, field guide to those three will be participating in a panel in just about 30 minutes or so. We will bring that to you live then after that Katha Pollitt will be our guests for another call in. We have to call ends to go and im going to grab professor chemerinsky and bring him over here so we can get started. We have a full day of coverage again tomorrow. 7. 5 hours of coverage tomorrow seek go to our web site booktv. Org and you can get the full schedule their pity well see see on the righthand side scroll down a little bit and youll see in the righthand side were so scheduling could it be at the print button you will see the full schedule there. So we have four more collins or five collins tomorrow so you have lots of chances to talk with authors who are participating. We have been sitting here in the gallagher theatre here at the university of arizona. Its a Beautiful Day in tucson. About 120,000 people attend this festival on an annual basis so it is held in the quad of the university of arizona. The cspan bus to tenure. If you follow our twitter feed you can see some of these outside shots that we have been getting. We have been outside a little bit and we will show you the crowds and some of the setting out here. Joining us now here on our set is professor Erwin Chemerinsky. Professor chemerinsky lets go right to cause because we have lots of people waiting to talk to you and we are going to begin with a call from rob in san diego. Robbie robby were on the air. Go ahead. Caller thank you very much better knowing them them and them a number can people watch cspan and want to have the comment on the Supreme Courts rulings freedom of speech and our high school specifically contrasting the fabulous tinker case with morse and fraser and hazelwood. Just go share. The first case that you alluded to is a case called tinker versus des moines board of education and in tinker the Supreme Court eloquently said students do not leave their freespeech rights at the schoolhouse gate. The court protected right of students to wear black armbands to protest the vietnam war but in every case since then and you mention them by name, the Supreme Court has ruled against student speech in favor of the ability for school with ministers disbanded to punish speech. One example is worst versus freddie. The olympic torch was coming through journal. Guest . A student got together friends with a banner that quote bong hits for jesus. The principal. That was a message to encourage illegal drug use. She confiscated the banner and suspended a student from school to the Supreme Court 54 said the student of the punish for the speech. As Justice Stevens says its hard to believe that the speech had the slightest effect. Hard to believe any student the smartest or slowest is more likely to use drugs because of this banner. This case shows the deference given to school with administrators alike are protection of student speech. But today was calling in for madison wisconsin. Hi david. Caller hi. Professor guinevere proposals to reform the court require a constitutional amendment and if so what should the amendment say . Guest thats a great question. Only one of my proposals term limits and Supreme Court justices would acquire require a limit. For example any president could create a merit selection panel. Jimmy carter did just that in the Federal District court and federal court of appeals judges and never got a Supreme Court omission. It would take a constitution take a constitutional meant minute to create term limits for justices. I am encouraged by the possibilities even though constitution limits are difficult. This afternoon when i mentioned term limits there was enthusiastic applause from the audience. Texas governor rick perry obviously no liberal when he ran for president in 2012 for an 18 year nonrenewable term. In answer to your question which of the memos say . Just what i proposed, the person nominated to the Supreme Court in the future and confirmed that serve for no longer than 18 years and they could not be renewed. Host when was ucirvine law school formed a wellwisher role . Guest of the regents of university of california proved it in 2006. I was named the founding dean in 2007. I moved to irvine in 2008. We accepted our first students in 2009 and that was our sixth year of having students. Host are there any Supreme Court cases that you dont know . Guest there are many Supreme Court cases i dont know but one virtue of being a specialist having been a law professor for 35 years as the ability of knowledge in the field. Host when you read a Supreme Court case what do you look for . Guest i start as everyone does i wanted to understand the facts of the case may teach my students the importance of looking at the facts. Then try to understand whats the holding . Was the principle lot stands for for . How broadly or narrowly has the quarter to believe that the minimum interested to see what is the defense and whats the difference between them . I like everybody else look at the line of the justices. Soften Ryan Anthony Kennedy is as a swing vote. One place to start where did Anthony Kennedy cannot . Host how important our dissonance when it comes to the actual law . Guest dissents often are the basis for the future. This afternoon we were talking about the Supreme Court decisions in 1890s and 1936 that ruled against laws to protect consumers. The dissenting opinions became the majority opinions in the future so i think the dissents are there to put forth the idea so future justices can take advantage of it and make it the law. Host we are talking here in booktv with Erwin Chemerinsky. Heres his most recent book, the case against the Supreme Court. Jim into, washington you are on. Caller yeah professor chemerinsky as an undergraduate Political Science major i studied the Supreme Court and wrote my senior thesis on the equal protection opinions of the chief justice harwin who served on the court during periods of civil rights vote lib litigation. In your discussion of the Supreme Court cases following the civil war amendments and how those cases affected those amendments they have a think a really profound impact on the country and open the door to jim crow. Im wondering if he could, on that for a moment. Guest of course. In 1875 Congress Passed a statute that prohibited places of public accommodation like restaurants from discriminating on the basis of race. The Supreme Court in a civil rights case of 1883 that you mentioned said the Congress Acting under the postcivil war amendments could not regulate private behavior. It could only regulate state and local governments. So the Supreme Court not only struck down the statute but also greatly limited the ability of congress on laws that dealt with discrimination and racial injustice. Host barbara in new york city, good afternoon to you. Caller good afternoon. Professor chemerinsky i was just wondering if you would give your opinion on three justices. Oliver Wendell Holmes Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. Thank you so much. Guest Oliver Wendell holmes was one of the most celebrated justices in history. There are many of his opinions that arent applied that there are many of his opinions but i think are among the worst in history to this afternoon began by talking about buck versus delaware Justice Holmes said three generations of imbeciles are enough and state can impose involuntary sterilization sterilization. As Justice Holmes wrote the first cases about the First Amendment and allow the government to punish speech even when theres no realistic danger of national security. The first cases schenck versus message involving a man is certainly to leaflet arguing the military draft was involuntary servitude. For doing that he served 10 years in prison. Theres no evidence in military recruitment rick at the Supreme Court opinion by Justice Holmes upheld in the simpsons conviction. They both had very distinguished careers as active as lawyers before going on the bench. Louis brandeis very much was a lawyer who represented individuals workers, consumers. Brandeis is a distinguished justice on the court. He was a very powerful voice in favor of freedom of speech. They he is one the most eloquent writers to eloquent writers twos serve writers twos server in a Supreme Court justice. Thurgood marshall as the head of the naacp. Hes a lawyer who argued brown versus board of education Supreme Court. No lawyer did more to advance Racial Justice and Thurgood Marshall and then when he was a justice on the court he was very much a voice for that. Host would be it be fair to say Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall and john roberts have something in common and in fact they were private lawyers lawyers for longtime . Guest yes and no. Yes they share something in common. They both argued many cases before the Supreme Court before becoming a Supreme Court justice at the no is ideologically they are different in who they represented is quite different. Thurgood marshall was always represented africanamericans and the cause of racial equality in the Supreme Court. Brandeis at times represented business but also argued in favor of upholding the laws to regulate this. John roberts as a lawyer was consistently on the side of business and has been that way is a justice. Host appointed you decide you want to be a lawyer . Guest my senior year of college. Open to that point if you ask made during any stage of college i would have told you i want to be a high school teacher. I took all of the College Classes to become a high school teacher. I did my student teaching. Unless it expires i believe im still a certified socials studies teacher in the state of illinois. I wanted to be like a be like the civil rights lawyers of the 1950s and 60s. I once do the kinds of things that Thurgood Marshall were doing. Host Erwin Chemerinsky is our guest and theres the cover of the books the case against the Supreme Court. Doug is in newport news virginia. Hi guys. Caller hello, how are you doing professor . I have two questions. The Affordable Care act is the lava law of the land, is that correct . I heard the question about the Affordable Care act but i miss the rest the question. Host isnt allowed to lend . Guest in knott. Caller can you tell me how governor nikki haley and governor bobby jindal had defied the Affordable Care act and i have another question. Im pretty sure Trayvon Martin had the right to go to the store and purchase his sweet tea and skittles and come back home. How can they convict a person in knott an unarmed black team in ferguson and so higher for those convictions when other people commit homicides and black people commit homicides and are convicted all the time . Host dead just a second it looks like the professor is a followup. Guest let me answer each of the questions and turned. The Affordable Care act calls on the states to create Health Care Exchanges but no state is required by congress to do something great is the law says the state does not create a Health Insurance exchange. The federal government can create a health care exchange. 62 governments have created Health Exchanges and the other 34 States Congress has done so. As to your latter question you identify an enormously serious problem in this country read there is an enormous problem with regard to police abuse, especially minorities particularly africanamerican man and there has been a failure for criminal Justice System or civil Justice System to deal with this. Host professor chemerinsky isnt the case that the Supreme Court just turned on health care in your view a legitimate case . Guest its clearly a legitimate case but that doesnt say what the outcome should be. Heres the problem. The law says that if a person purchases insurance on exchange they get a tax credit. But in 36 states the federal government created the exchange. Should the person get the tax credit if they buy insurance from the federal exchange . I think the answer is clearly yes. Congress wants to make sure that those who qualified economically could afford insurance from those exchanges and those 36 states the federal government has done so the only way people can afford is to get the tax credit. The challenges are people get the tax credits only if they purchase insurance from the state established exchanges. Thats what the case is about. Host in a subchapter you write the classic and i believe the most powerful argument for judicial review is the one first made for it, they need to enforce the limits of the constitution. What do you mean by that . Guest inmar briefers as madison in 1803 the Supreme Court said the constitution exists to limit government power. Those limits are meaningless unless they are enforced. Often the elected branches of government wont voluntarily choose to adhere to those limits to what we need is the court to be there to enforce the limits that the constitution places on government. Host so judicial review thumbsup still . Guest im still in favor of judicial review process utterly when you think of my clients criminal defendants including on death row guantanamo detainee, Homeless People they are not going to win in the political process. When his last time a state legislature adopted a law to increase the rights of criminal defendants quits when was the last time the state legislature had a lot to protect i think the courts are too often failed and we can make this a bigger better. Host cc in portland oregon. Hi. Caller two questions. On one the idea of strict constructionist for an originalist. Would that person be in favor of discrimination today and coming off the other caller about the police where did the police get their authority from . Is almost like its in the constitution that if they stop us we have to cooperate or if they ask us to do something with to do it. Where do they get their authority . Guest as to your first question the original constitution very much protected the institution of slavery. The 13th amendment adopted in 1865 prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude to change the original understanding. In terms of your latter question its always been understood that the government has whats called case power that the Fourth Amendment to the constitution says before the police can arrest or search a person there has to be a warrant. They has to be a reasonable search or arrest. The constitution presumes the existence of police under police power. Host at call close your home in Mission Viejo california. Hi you. He is gone, sorry about that. Lets move on to carbondale illinois. You are in booktv with professor chemerinsky. Caller hello. I have three questions. One is we have a plant called coppers Wood Treatment plant that started in 1902 and the citizens have not had any resolve with the contamination that has affected their community. My second question is when a person is in the county jail and has not been convicted i was denied the opportunity to register those persons to vote at my third question is we have a police force here who wishes to put police in Elementary School with the kindergartners to the sixthgrade. Where do people turn to and who can we turn to for these problems but this community is facing . Guest very quickly there is a federal statute, the superfund law referred to as that requires cleaning up toxic waste. You need to talk to environmental lawyer about that. Second in terms of voting a state can deny the right to vote if a person has been convicted of a felony 1977 Supreme Court case, state cannot deny the right to vote to those before they been convicted including those who have been held in jail so a Civil Liberties lawyer would be the one to help you with that problem. Third theres nothing that violates the constitution by putting a Police Officer and a Elementary School. It may be unwise but its not unconstitutional. With the police can do to school is limited by the constitution. Host professor chemerinsky has the Legal Society contributed to some of the problems with regard to laws and with regard to enforcement . Guest of course it has. I think lawyers and judges deserve most of the blame because they are the ones responsible for the legal system but i also think lawyers and judges have done a terrible job of informing people about the constitution. More people in this country can name the seven than the justices of the United States. That is why we do is important. Host who are your two favorite justices, current justices . Guest on the Current Court i think Ruth Bader Ginsburg and sonia sotomayor. I think historically i would put John Marshall one of the first chief justice is an earl warren at the top of my list. Host and Justice Scalia, its often said that Justice Scalias writings are often quite vivid. Do you agree that . Guest it depends on what you mean by vivid. He writes superbly. I think hes one of the best writers on the court but hes also the most sarcastic justice to serve on the court. I think that is a tremendous disservice to the legal system. I think hes a terrible role model for my students and lawyers about how to write. I dont think sarcasm is a useful way of writing and i think he is giving an example of the scenes. The number of times i see students trying to model themselves after Justice Scalia or read lawyers. That way i dont think is constructed to be caustic in that manner. Host that call is ripping los angeles. Ruby you arent booktv. Caller my question for the professors what is your opinion on the students that you see at irvine who took the sled down . Do you feel their rights would be violated if they couldnt keep the u. S. Flag away from the common area . Posted can you explain this to the National Audience . Guest about 10 days ago a group of students voted to take the flag down from the lobby the Student Union building. At some. In jan or point in jan or the sierra flag tacked to the wall the building. The students were divided whether to keep the flag on the wall or to take the flag down. The student that he voted 64 to take the flag down off of the wall of the building. That attracted national attention. Much of it was misreported trade for sample the university of california irvine bans the flag on campus. Thats nonsense. There were six students who didnt want the flag on the wall wall. Its not a First Amendment case. The campus can decide if it wants the flag in the campus buildings. In fact another group of the student body decided to put the flag back. Its not a First Amendment issue. The government can put the flag and government buildings were once applied to be displayed. Host now your opinion of the case . Guest i think it is much ado about nothing. I think so much was made of this. I believe the American Flag should be in government buildings. I believe the American Flag should be in buildings on the university of california irvine campus. Whether the student body wanted the flag tacked on the wall doesnt go they have an enormous amount of attention but i dont think you deserve the attention we saw. Host are. Host omar is calling in from West Sacramento california. Hi omar. Caller hi. [inaudible] the 47 congressmen who wrote the letter to the government of iran trying to subvert the process of president obama and his administration that have been trying to secure and i just wanted to know what he thought about that and what was his opinion. Guest in 1799 Congress Passed the logan act. He makes it impermissible for anyone to contact a Foreign Government in order to change the policies of the white house. The logan act was adopted long ago. It was based on the notion that the president should be representing the United States dealing with Foreign Governments. In this instance this was published as an open letter in a newspaper to the government of iran. Certainly members of congress 47 senators have the right to express their opinion. On the other hand i dont think this is the most constructive way of developing foreign policy. Everyone agrees iran should not have nuclear weapons. The question is how to get there . I dont think these 47 senators will undermining the present is constructive foreign policy. Host joe is in pittsburgh. Joe you are on booktv. Caller hello . Did you hear me . Host we are listening. Please go ahead. Caller my question is in reference to the justices. Im more fascinated by the lawyers who defended dred scott. To me these two guys are the most interesting guys in the Supreme Court. [inaudible] the case not only involved him but it involved his wife and his children. I would like to know if you are familiar with this appeal . Guest i am familiar with them and its always interesting on who argued the case of the background. Let me add something to your question that huber the justices . Miniature member the majority of the justices set on the court when the dred scott case came down had been slaveowners. Some of them were still slaveowners. I would expect them to transcend that and they would have written a narrow decision not the broad one that they handed down. But we have to look at the context of the times. Im not excusing them but im just explaining. Host the case against the Supreme Court is set tos most recent book the conservative and a solid constitution came out in 2010. What was the focus of that book . Guest conservatives since Richard Nixon had run for president has succeeded in dramatically changing aspects of the constitution. They wrote of the wall that separated church and state. They have lessened fundamental rights. They have close access to the courts so the key difference from this book is this has much more of a historical focus and i was trying as hard as they can to focus on examples that both can agree to. Host the next call for professor subeight comes from terry in boise idaho. Terry please go ahead. Caller i was interested in any thoughts you had on the Second Amendment and also the most defining characteristic of the conservative and liberal mindset . Posted before he answers terry what is your view on the Second Amendment . Caller i believe its far too vague for us to develop good laws on it and im interested, i think it should be clarified somehow and if theres any possibility of it being clarified . Guest the Second Amendment says a wellregulated militia directs people to keep and bear arms shall not in 1791 when it was enacted until 2008 the Supreme Court always said the Second Amendment means what it said. Its the right of the people to have guns for the purpose of militia service. In 2008 in the case call District Of Columbia versus howard the Supreme Court said these Second Amendment individual guns at least in the home for their own safety. He was a 54 decision. I dont know when the views on the Second Amendment became so ideologically divided that the five conservatives on the court took the gun rights position. The four liberals on the court took the gun control position. Your specific question was will there be a constitution amended to clarify the Second Amendment . No. Its so hard takes a real social consensus. Twothirds of both houses of congress, threequarters the states and there is no consent about the Second Amendment for guns rights. Host the second part is question of his question what do you see as the mindset of a typical liberal and a typical conservative . Guest conservatives initially to the gun rights position. The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be threatened. The liberal takes the position of look at the whole Second Amendment. Says a new militia is necessary. They favor gun control is a the Second Amendment is a right to own guns for purpose of militia service. Host time for tomball curls two more calls for professor chemerinsky. Bird from california were in the air. Caller hi mr. Chemerinsky. Thank god for you. You are a wonderful voice. Guest thank you. Caller i want to talk about the arbitration clause. For the life of me i dont know why that hasnt been struck down. In the first place the Bargaining Power of the individual its nowhere in sight with an arbitration clause that is written into virtually anything whether we want to get a bank account a loan a credit card acrosstheboard or take it out of commerce of this country. Host first of all burn we are going to get an answer from professor chemerinsky but what is your interest in the arbitration clause . Caller i worked as a contact of the straighter for architecture firms for years. I am retired now. But i saw time and again as a matter of fact i was a member of the American Arbitration Association for some time. I know it well and its totally in favor of chamber of commerce. There is no way about that the selection of arbitrators, so many of them are retired judges. Host thank you sir. We have got it. Guest i agree. Im not against arbitration. If they would rather go do an arbiter than court they should be able to do so. My opinion is the same as yours. When lawyers impose arbitration on employees when manufacturers and merchants impose arbitration clauses on consumers they have no choice. In these instances is not a contractual agreement. Disfavors business over consumers over employees than it takes away the peoples right to their day in court. You know what concerns me is people have lost this right without even being aware of it. Host the last call for professor chemerinsky comes from michael in jamestown North Carolina. Michael you are on booktv. Caller thank you. My questions about the principle of stare decisis. As you know in 1979 the Supreme Court and the smith bee maryland case gave a decision i think it goes in Public Places where person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. As they turn over that information into the nsa. I a agree with the premise of the question. Host the case against a Supreme Court the most recent book and has been our guest at the campus of the university ever so of. Coming up one more panel today this is the nation magazine contributors after words to a yes for the callin program youre watching live coverage of the tucson a book festival on booktv. [inaudible conversations] please a and gentlemen will come to the nation magazine 150th birthday party. [applause] we are here at the tucson festival box with cspan booktv we have folks across america looking bad we are delighted to have them join us. [applause] my name is john and i write about politics with the nation. Is indeed dead is celebrating its 150th anniversary. 150 years of travel rousing and agitate the and investigating an objecting to call out the ugly of uses of Corporate Power to embrace the duty of movements for social and economic justice. [cheers and applause] it has spent zero long journey of 150 years we had to figure out where we would go with the pit. 4 the next 150 and we decided look at terry for the sun to soften several books because were told day pineda little speaker truth to power. [laughter] [applause] pooley are here to celebrate and highlight the courage to work of the nation and does. We dont want to spend too much time looking backward while we were founded by the abolitionist in 1865 we believe we have held true to the best of those values but we have not succeeded in all of our goals so would appears to have a lot ahead of. But if you were here in this room or watching so with that feels a phone you have become addicted to if you put it in the word nation 66866 that will tap into a world of the enlightenment and information. So please do that if you can rebut the of to tell you more about the magazine but right now so to give you a sense of what were working on now. And i assure you know, the remarkable Katha Pollitt. [applause] one of the few people who can come here to hold a thoughtful discussion of reproductive rights and feminism and then the next day give a seminar of poetry. , but talking about her new book which is the embrace of the struggle for the value of a society that respects womens reproductive rights in their struggles to be a part of all that we see for but also to get comfortable with words that a lot of people dont always say. Katha pollitt. [applause] next ever is lee fang an Investigative Reporter not to cast aspersion is but if you have a question about the Koch Brothers. [laughter] lee fang bottle is the modesty and shy that has investigated in and examined the role of billionaires and corporations and big money money, not to undermine our democracy. It is absolutely essential he recently joined the interceptor is a do project doing online investigative reporting and just this week wrote an incredible piece on how the fbi was working with local police to investigate for some reason the black law judge matter movements. The fact is with those difficult realities that they face in our society as well as why people would rather silence its rather than embrace the wisdom. Lee fang. [applause] police searched the country to figure out the elected official we have not found too much trouble with. [laughter] that we cannot let them on the panel we were stuck with only a blind and it was congressman Raul Grijalva. [cheers and applause] the cochair of the of her person if progressive caucus we have disagreed few times but the bottom line is hes worked very hard to make us disagree with him and more often than not one of the rare people really does speak truth to power so were very honored to have him. [applause] Katha Pollitt the nation is a diverse magazine if it does a lot of Different Things but one of the things we celebrate is americas oldest weekly journal of opinion. We express opinions but we dont like to express them that has been expressed to many times before for what might even be considered controversial. If you are a nation reader if you want controversy start with Katha Pollitt so i want to bring her in initially to talk about the value or usefulness to have a platform to express controversial and challenging opinions that 10 years from now could be conventional wisdom. It is of value to be. I love writing my column and look forward to when and analysts feel i dont have enough words and all have and space they should give me more space now that the format is slightly a different i can go over my 1,000 birds that feels like the extra 100 kurds is like an acre. Make a whole other form. Open his is a very important part of what the nation does and we have had strong and powerful forces i am so happy to have my colleagues and patricia, gary, and others people who have gone on a fly head but theyre all great. For me the fun of reading it is so important writers love to complain but if there really was that terrible thin while we go teach school or sell insurance or run the farm . What i love is to frame the argument to do research to Say Something that has not been said a million times already. Put has been said already often by the but to cut in in with political interest to Say Something fresh and new. That is wonderful. I love writing for the nation which i have been doing for many years. It is not an extension of of the nation but it does reflect it is a very common thing that they evil into writing a lot of books . Spee rick you write for a thousand words week after week then when you were faced with the book it does seem like the antarctic of white federalized i have been writing about these things with book is about abortion rights. So to take a deeper dive into that complicated subject to make a conversation in from blanks feels like a luxury and after that i stopped complaining to writing my column for ever 200 pages is really painful. Said to have a column or a forum by writing and my the nation is i get to interact with readers i know for they are and they know who i am. So what i have written florida newspaper for the oped him have to start from ground zero to explain your language to give the history of every think theres so little room to say the things you are trying to say and the great thing about the nation is you know, who your writing for. My readers are very forthright to tell the house from ibm and that is great i feel like it is a conversation and that is what i love. Sometimes get friendly greetings for those to relieve disagree. Guide to writing a lot about abortion rights i get letters that say Katha Pollitt abortion writer i am so much more than that what about my poetry . But i didnt get some cost ill mail but that is to be expected. If not then you were not pushing back enough. It is natural mostly people right if they dont like it if they like it they go on with their day. Either via is they cannot sleep until they write to you but that shows there is something to talk about. One of the great struggles is they dont push to the limits or use the words that were not used to hearing on major tv shows on a regular basis of one of the things you do is challenge with other people are accepting hero controversially after 9 11 with the issues to stir people up in a fundamental way. I did that was my column about not flying the flag after 9 11 that will go on my tombstone i still cannot escape that i may express myself more carefully but we were all upset especially in new york but i think exactly the moment when everyone is being the most patriotic and coming together all the newsmen are wearing the American Flag lapels you have to challenge that automatic response because what we saw happen in was the next thing there is a war. And that is what happened. Instead of having your column drop to continue to write for the nation. [applause] lee fang has a lot of back story and worked for the online work and i know full well they noted a of the nation magazine the years know exactly the work he has done the one of the things that lead did after brock apollo was elected was spend one better part of a year travelling across the country to look at how very powerful interest were seeking to undermine his presidency. Not to say thinking he was the best thing since sliced bread but looking at how people meddle with the process to have a profound impact on our democracy the nation tries to look at the structure behind it so to talk about what we have done over the years but the real power in america and how that operates. Thank you for the organizers is humbling to be here. I hope to continue my relationship with the nation that is where my real Investigative Journalism is paired with commentary and is known as of liberal institution for many reasons but that does not prevent it without corruption on bad system issues in a structurally it fits into the society. Viewing as left wing that has not prevented to take on the left the there are a number of stories that are rejected from the nation and a number of stories took a leading role of investigating the left i did some blogging last summer on the neutrality Net Neutrality and some of the largest civilrights establishments to a lot of money from comcast and verizon then they went to the fcc and said we cannot have neutrality this is something the nation published even my employers fantastic investigation are looking over their corporate financing. I need to pause for a second to say the nations magazine publishes this then sends them out to mess with very powerful people who actually like the nation magazine and that is part of what makes it work. We have taken a look at some of the biggest failures the field of the administration headed never uncovered and one of the biggest promises of obama as the candidate was to close the revolving door to stop the influx of lobbyist to take control of key committees and federal positions but we never saw a bigger form so we saw that published around this time last year that looked at obama is promises on closing them revolving door to reform lobbying and everything they did that could be ordered down from certain positions in the administration increased the problems because what did the community to . It didnt register if you look at the number of registered lobbyist but it is increasing that increased amount goes away from the books under ground and a key is into the way that lobbying is more sophisticated and also pays for Public Relations to pay off academics or the think tank everything that needs to be done to influence in that larger systemic that we reveal is we had to lobby disclosure act for a number of years if you contact members of Congress Asking them to support the bill you are supposed to go to the secretary or the house clerk to register your activities. This law has been on the books for a long time and obama promise to increase enforcement but it has never been enforced ever. If you are a shadow lobbyist doing whenever a lobbyist and does if you dont register it doesnt matter they have never lifted a finger to go after these folks dash they have never had as a prosecution is a great story and has prompted action on the federal level but not much has changed as sometimes is the case but it is typical for a bond that does not hold back but is honest to take on the sacred cows in the big institutions in washington. You have up wonderful book from your examination over a longer period of time how health care became the issue that major media covers its but there is the back story most people are not aware of with corporate money or power or influence. Discos is what i was talking about the sophistication of the influence the most important policy issue objectively of the obama era is Health Reform to understand how this went down part of this is in my book the machine in march 2009 obama had a summit to say what our Political Capital into passing the Health Reform they had a summit from the Hospital Association pharmaceuticals cave into the microphone to say this will be different it is not like the early 90s we will work handinhand to pass something positive. We agree with the skyrocketing cost lets fix it together for broke. Looking at the coverage whether the New York Times or whenever everybody reported as such this Industry Group is it supportive to aircraft lot more innocent i had the privilege to tour the country to see them more underhanded tactics used to go to different town halls of course, some of this is organic but in many cases organizers funded by industry to coach to shout him down to do real the conversation so it isnt should we change the way we in for a prescription in judge drugs . Novas have the conversation about a great people at town hall. To make it more of a food fight. Such a track succeeds organizers to be a disruptive the money came back to a small group of industries that did not want the bill a of the donors who did not want it so this would have been perfect at the time. You continued to examine some people may have heard this story about the workers and their protest . Wrote a feature at how the retail and fastfood industry has responded theyre not exactly labor unions but Community Groups and foundations tried to figure out new organizing models for people who work at walmart and big box three tort retailers and there has been pushed back and won quick anecdote one that has organized farm workers is in florida with distributors the people that are actually at the register of topple bill to get consent to solidarity obviously the fastfood industry does not look like just like that organizing some cave with the soviet flag and started waving it. The colleague to pictures and then they looked at of blackberrys then they take pictures and other time. They did not know who this person was so we could identify the person not a surprise but there were funded by a fastfood Industry Group and it was their p. R. People. But these types of strategies were laid out with a conference in chicago later that year bragging about the way they could and undermine the social justice message of the growing movement by creating these distractions cynically tisane gentleman lee fang. [applause] congressmen Raul Grijalva people should be informed the substantial portion of the room are your constituents. [laughter] [applause] and their the age percent that likes their congressmen. [laughter] but most of the time you deal with the media you deal with those a dont tell you much more they added no or a little less. Give us a sense of the role or the value of having a publication that moves from the progressive position rather than asking why. Is quite an honor to be here it is a great opportunity to talk about something important of late of what were seeing in the country with media has become more of a controlled information in a system compared to the oldfashioned and clash of ideas to let people begin to with the debate of the discourse is a is to be more prepackaged and delivered. Publications like the nation after the acknowledged and the debate allies uncomfortable to make allies uncomfortable because they pushed of unnecessary envelope but one thing that is lacking is consistency in and i think the nation represents a consistent path that moves with the times a n the circumstances but consistently to keep that philosophy or set of values and they think that is very important for lack of nurture is a lack of a consistency, and i include myself to be consistent. With the lack of real attention to what we are doing to the historic consequences of what we decided that this moment with the batf failing to put that Historic Context in front of the American People it gets weaker. We limit the discourse it is a war of those words i have heard deferreds framing and messaging. I am really bad at that. I get really bored. [laughter] said to be a practitioner of electoral politics the issue of consistency is important in the fight to stay at of Decision Making with the lowest common denominator. But one thing that has been helpful if i did not come to the progressive caucus that all of a sudden i am a progressive for the academic paper i have read but it is distinctive how you grow up to see time and history and that is why i am a progressive. Guide love the man many of us are still there but we were the symbolic no weaver the voyager to count on with iraq and military spending, intervention you could count on this to be the though on the issues that led to the broadway. But with time we began to feel that progressive caucus had to provide alternatives to provide a context to those ideas and budgets initiatives the legislation. We are Getting Better but it is also in the context of what we do nobody knows about. I think their new media has been a good to us from the traditional the fed and the newspapers here in tucson said is too bad. And not evaluating but that is too bad. [laughter] and in his radio has disappeared. The public radio continues to provide coverage of the debt is replicated all over the country so the nation and other publications have broader depth that is so important to the democracy i remember the clash over the Affordable Care act we wanted to universal single payer is we lost that. [applause] we lost that early in the process so we regrouped to come with a public option option after that was rejected by the senate may also lost that we voted for the Affordable Care act on the theory it is incremental to get this to the next steps some data now were fighting to retain what we have its not a lesson but just the way the politics are right now dominated by a short burst of slogan and steered by many in the nation continues to poke at that balloon and it is good for the democracy and all said to push the envelope because that is the hardest thing for three that i have seen to be consistent so of the American People have to look at the historical consequences and right now without information it is hard to urdu. We actually gave you a hard time moving off single payer them rethought that you should then we gave you a hard time on the public option we didnt play view but it kept pushing beyond understand of first he has not always got a pat on the back from the nation but one place where we wrote about you quite a bit is where you stood up in arizona on the fight over immigrant rights and what arizona was doing to limit protections and just take a moment to talk about that. The point was the boycott to do it over again a little more delicate . [laughter] but had been said that left at the consequences and the cost to the state by not dealing with it that social fabric grift the danger of not solving or dealing with that issue with builtin tolerance with that tranquility of the nation but retrospect i was right. [laughter] [applause] congressmen Raul Grijalva ladies and gentleman. [applause] actually conferred read why he was condonation and Magazine Panel because one of our most famous phrase is is i was right to live your decades later. [laughter] truth of the matter is a nation has been right. We were right about lgbt before anybody else or to meet the reverend Martin Luther king, jr. A regular contributor to the magazine in the early stages of the Civilrights Movement and to talk about the fact a 725 an hour is not a page f15 dollar is closer. We also like to say the congressman is one of there their people to realize when we are right. [laughter] we will go to some of your questions for in the series the spirit of cspan and go to the microphone. We would love dash your questions and dash as you work your way step up to the microphone but with a one and other elements, the nation in magazine a this point is spending a lot of time on the president ial race and rustling frankly the question is it time we have a woman as president of United States . Past time. [applause] but also whether a particular woman might be the perfect choice. [laughter] i think sarah palin would be good. [laughter] would have led just say about that is if Elizabeth Warren says 5,000 times i am not running then maybe we should listen to that. There is a pipe dream element to this that wishing would change things that the candidate who is ready to go in and all prepared is a very clinton and that nothing she is terrible. Id rather see her as president and dirty sanders failing to win. Not that he is so common. [laughter] but have my stage of life i figure i have maybe 20 or years to be aware of food the president is. [laughter] i would really like to see that women president and a prochoice democrat. Right now Hillary Clinton is my best option and i am sticking with her. [applause] suggest to confer you cannot easily say i am right, he is year. Said in a guy would also like to vote for a womans president maybe we could get elisabeth the reason imf here at the microphone because one of the things i thought was the most impressive from the caucus was the peoples budget for some reason that got next to no air time anywhere. We have in our editor not only wrote about it for the nation into slipped into her Washington Post column may be with the great preacher predicates may have mentioned it this way abc. [laughter] we may have done our part. Is seen something that was crafted by 60 percent support for or against Something Like the rest of the panel is it dead . Because clearly the Budget Priorities of the Current Congress are not helping anybody were least the people that matter. We have a hardball question coming your way congressman. We will submit did eric roulette out next week with the progressive caucus. The hardest decision is to attach said david to its. [laughter] it is for everyone but differ from the Democratic Caucus budget and differ from the republican budget we deal with the reality of deficit but also with the reality of of the economic agenda wage disparity, income inequality and indeed for jobs and in a way that talks about raising revenue as well. Is a good budget we did not do a good job as members ourselves we didnt let people know we had it this time it will be a much more aggressive effort we will have our time on the floor. Not just five minutes in the budget has inc. For our five major points lower transaction in tax minimumwage issues that are part of the budget is an alternative would have their reasons we have progressives in the caucus so with no economic agenda we will have the budget we hope you give us your opinion. As optimistic as the congressman is there is a political discourse were not a lot of space is given to alternative budgets especially if they suggest you might want to tax the rich people. [laughter] that system whether with congress over the media to solve the basic problems of society. The very first bill passed and signed a of the president of this congress because it was packaged with the reauthorization was is exemption to the end user Commodity Trading basically a special gift for critters traders derivatives traders i like watching political ads in in revenues but i remember a single politician talking about end user exemptions but i dont remember as having a healthy debate about it. [laughter] but this is the first spill into saw a lot of lobbying activity with hundreds of lobbyists with there of little coalition and the lobbyists were working on this with the Previous Congress that went on to become chief staff to those that are in office today d. C. Media comes out every year with the top hired guns of the year. With the biggest lobbyist one of those top guns was present chief of staff to the senator from ohio so that revolving door the monday is a part of it or the media failure unfortunately the nation cover this. Ever old friend Alex Cockburn yet used to say the magic and the cynical thought coming into your mind. My question in follows up your answer. Even with a goalpost moved with those fiduciary duties and Public Officials with your investigation or analysis of the Koch Brothers have you found something now or by the previous standard amount to criminality . One that we are concerned with left and right with the money end compete campaigns when Citizens United was handed down it was on the presumption of the super pacs for the unlimited amounts of money with them a campaign that is under regulation. To say you would go too far for billionaires to milliondollar contributions but the Koch Brothers have taken advantage of this landscape but the problem is the federal of regulator that is supposed to enforce the fire wall has never investigated the problem. The f ec is charged with enforcing the firewall. Because they are set up to have three democratic commissioners they deadlocked every time so when someone brings them credible evidence it is pretty clear from reading the news that they ask the big donors to fund the super pac so to hire any suggested we have any investigation. But it is hard to say if theyre actually breaking the al lot. We dont have the fcc is looking into the issues. With that megadeath fundraiser events who share her views and the lobbying priorities will funnel all the money together at the last meeting there is news they will spend 1 billion collectively with the next election cycle. And the candidates attend these also. They give presentations and they all talk if there is supposed to be a firewall it is clearly violated the tender grass probably violate as well but for this big money ever we dont see the investigation that should be done with federal authorities. I will go to the nation magazine had a story last fall on a gentleman from arizona who met with a coat brothers and told him what a good kafiri heat would be. I have a question from a heartfelt desire that we do make a difference in our government and we have a place to do that and the discourage mitt we feel is simply when you talk about the lobbyists for wealthy people making decisions are choosing candidates what role does the party play really in all of this that refuse to go to the convention and there would have created a large agenda is that really the way it works now or is it more a fact it has already been done before we get to that place . What really works because it is discouraging some days. Congressman you are a democrat. [laughter] i really believe the party, my party and its role in the future is very important but like all organizations like the Democratic Party there is always the struggle internally to what its value and so will will be so that his constant. But i still believe that apparatus in organization is important to the American People whether economic or social led Democratic Party has stepped up to the the country to do that. But i also understand with neutrality is an important fight the there is a neutrality among organizations that was a good win for groups unaffiliated with congress in the process that brought a lot of great pressure and information into members of congress. I thought it was a victory for them over organizations historically were aligned with us civilrights organizations that were bought out then suddenly against the efforts of these groups but i thought this outside presence and similar issues raised very important and revitalizes the party. But it is a struggle internally. That is why with the full Democratic Caucus in congress we have the progressive caucus because we feel there are points of view that the to be at the table all we dont always do with the lowest common denominator second level note the nations coverage of politics is about the struggle of both parties who puts money where and once upon a time the nation had a relatively warm spot for the Republican Party because founded in 1865 it did a lot of good stuff so we know about the evolution of parties. Thank you for your questions Raul Grijalva can you tell me what will happen if the Supreme Court strikes down obamacare . 11 Million People better presently insured will not be. The things whole Political Landscape changes and a the viability to rally around a single payer will be upon us but 11 Million People will be without health care that Health Delivery system like the hospitals will have a tremendous financial crunch that will hurt. In human toll and a huge economic and financial toll to the nation as a Supreme Court rules against that. The number 11 million neece to be in everybodys forefront and never to finally that hospitals are starting to come on of the uncompensated care crisis the had the last two years that was double down that will be very bad. This is a question for teeeight teeeight let your ideas to reinvigorate the Womens Movement . To lou groups at University High school the had a small group of young women feminist. What ideas . The effect is fabulous to hear about the local groups. I am modestly encouraged because i feel young women really are becoming more interested in feminism and a broader kind of feminism than maybe was the case to attend or 15 years ago. Reproductive justice, a Sexual Assault on campus issues but the issues that i feel that are completely a crucial everybody is for it but not a lot going on about it is equal pay a child care all the boring and a pressing issues that dont move too much for word are essentials for womens equality. If there is no system of child care bin you never get women participating in the workforce in the equal way. It is not possible. If there isnt strong antia sexual discrimination law in force then there will always be a lot of women being pushed out of jobs. I would like to see a little more attention to the economic side then we currently see. But maybe that will happen as she said optimistically. [laughter] i am very optimistic alibi to think all of you to our world. As a book festival talk about art and culture and books because they are in danger in the southwest. Congressman Raul Grijalva you know how theyre taking the box out of the libraries and schools i would like to get an update because there is such a fear of culture and literature look at the best sellers there is never latinos or very few asians there is not enough in the culture to elevate the multi a cultural voices we have seen that here in arizona and also in california my friend says she can only speak for 10 or 58 minutes in spanish. I have gone through a school in my town by yet they have never brought the Spanish Speaking artist to that school. I will put a message in spanish. [speaking spanish] cree arjuna the states and to have to speak english so racy racism and that multicultural fere when people tell me i love french but it scares me but i dunno what people say about me. So this freer summit permeated the landscape so they are pulled a and began to apply to get an update here in arizona to challenge each of us with this wonderful festival to look at multicultural literature as the voice of the heartland and the voice of our people and ancestors. What can reduce to promote our multicultural voice . [applause] if i had that touchstone and would have touched that all long time ago to deal with what you make the statements that you make this sickening part about the banning of books and highschool said was legislative Legislature Said no. With a committee set up to select books decided maybe dr. King or chavez were not biographies decent enough to be part of the history curriculum on and on. That kind of censorship with legislative it is really bad it becomes part of a systematic thing going on. But i am trying to find with the context of immigration immigration, i really believe underneath the veneer of ice with Immigration Reform why we dont have it there is a political advantage to keep the issue unresolved so you continue to drown in heerlen dash hate and fear with us versus them. It is selling american what is happening to our country. Also to drive this issue is not only the political expediency the countrys demographically change. But it will change so a lot of people react to the immigrants but its all of us in terms of our own civil rights and people shouldnt have that burden placed on us. I think this nation evolves, it is evolving, but as we have in the past that the idea of a multicultural society, a Diverse Society will become more and more embedded in us. Literature art are part of that blending. We are not there yet. I dont have a touchdown to tell you when you tap on how its going to happen but i am totally convinced of its inevitability. I wish it was sooner than later. [applause] congressman Raul Grijalva. We have reached, we move past last year, but as the closer think both the question and an announcement along with kerry who is appearing the front row and deserves a round of applause. Are all the great work on the programming and the 2000 theat work tucson festival. On festival of books. [applause] just as is the person who has been organizing a 150th anniversary for the nation and i think you have something you want to throw in. A question for you john. I will be really quick. I just wanted to clarify what happens when i text the word nation to the number 66866 . I think you will become frankly a better person and writer. You will learn more about the nation and how you can connect. I can wait for that to happen but i think what will actually happen is you will sign up for the free email newsletter. Thats exactly right. The shamelessness of just donovan. [applause] brothers and sisters, before we break off here let me tell you on sunday night there are a lot of other programs here. On sunday night filmmaker Barbara Koppel who won the oscar for whenever documentaries in the past has made a documentary on the nation magazine and it will be debuted in the southwest at the loft theatre. We hope folks will come out for that and also tonight some of us will be at the International Brotherhood of electrical workers hall at 7 00 6 37 tonight to talk about labor in the southwest. Most of all we are delighted to be here at the tucson festival of books with this wonderful crowd with Katha Pollitt and congressman grijalva. Thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] you are watching book bocce beyond cspan2 live coverage of the seventh annual tucson festival of books. We are in a campus of the university of arizona and a gallagher theater which is in the Student Union building. Its a Beautiful Day here in tucson. If you happen to be in town tomorrow come on down. The festival continues in booktv will have another 7. 5 hours of live coverage. Five more author panels, five more callin opportunities and you can find a the full schedule at booktv. Org. In just a minute one of the presenters at the nation Contributors Panel will be joining us for a callin and that is Katha Pollitt to regular viewers of booktv and cspan know now has been on our air many times and her most recent book is called pro reclaiming abortion rights is the name of her book. If you would like to talk about abortion and politics politics 202 is the area code 74882000 for the city in Eastern Central timezone 7488201 for those of you in the mountain and pacific timezones. Katha pollitt welcome to booktv in tucson. Thanks for being with us. Thank you so much for having me. Host when did we as a nation start having discussions debate about the issue of abortion . Guests oh well in one sense there has been a very long debate going back to the 19th century which was when abortion was criminalized. A lot of people dont know that abortion was legal in the United States until after the civil war in most states. Then there was a big campaign against abortion and Birth Control and became completely illegal even to send information through the mail. It remained that way until the 60s. Host that when you say was legal was it because it wasnt illegal or was it specifically legalize . Guest it was not a subject of law. Host and nobody really talked about it are dealt with it . Guest into states connecticut and new york there were laws that are intended to protect women from dangerous drugs that people were using, herbal preparations but except for that it was pretty much no subject of litigation. Host today in 2015 do you see a threat to abortion rights and if so from where . Guest oh definitely. We are one Supreme Court justice away from losing roe v. Wade which would there are back to the states and contrary to what people like this might want that and what will happen to those women then . I think even if roe v. Wade stays legal on paper there are laws being passed in states that would severely limit access for women especially women who dont have a lot of money. Its a very serious problem. What was your goal with pro or goals . Guest i had several goals. I wanted to flip the whole script where abortion is terrible abortion is something you should feel ashamed of a guilty bout and if you have an abortion because you are raped well okay but if you have voluntary sex forget it because to me abortion is not just some abstract right on a piece of paper. Abortion is part of what is essential for women, legal abortion is essential for womens equality. I also think its good for society that children be born in an intentional way. It shouldnt just be you get pregnant accidentally and thats the rest of your life. I dont think this is a good way to organize society. Host now beginning at the texas book festival you have been at a couple of book festivals we have covered live on booktv. One of the things that struck me about the texas book festival was the number of women coming up to ask questions thing i have had an abortion. Guest that was astonishing. It was like a baptist revival. It was really something in the system part a response to my book which is i think theres a pentup conversation that up until now we mostly had speaking about their own abortions women who regret it and go to state legislatures and say i regret my abortion so it should be illegal for everybody. This makes no sense where some have had abortions said it has helped their lives and they are not sorry have been very disempowered from speaking out because there is a lot of sexual shame and stigma associated with abortion but with abortion predicting that more women can talk openly and freely about their reallife experiences the better it is. We should hear from women who read it and we should hear from women who do not regret it. Host Katha Pollitt is our guest from the nation and we will put the phone numbers up and take your calls. We will begin with a call from sam in ashland oregon. Salem viewer on booktv. Caller the nation magazine has been a standard in my house will hold for years. Its the only magazine that comes out with true articles. I wish more people would get the nation magazine and im excited about the conference that is taking place right now right now on tv. You can only watch this on cspan. Host salem and ashland oregon anything you would like to say about the 150th anniversary . Guest well is so exciting. We are the oldest journal of news and opinion in the United States. It started in 1865 and its amazing that we are still here so we have to plan ahead for the next 50 years. Host any significance to the fact that it was founded one month before the civil war ended . Guest well i think it did come out of the civil war struggle and the coalition of what we would now call liberal causes around that. But you know its a great and laborious long history. Host katrina vanden huevel who is the editor has been on cspan many times as well. Kathy is going from at the wyoming. Kathy you are on with Katha Pollitt. Caller hi. I believe women have the right to choose and ice have. Its just innate with me and always have. On one hand they say they believe in the sanctity of life and yet america is continuously killing women and children with the drones, fake wars come or real etc. And i dont know why we used this argument that we believe in the sanctity of life on one hand that we can kill on the other . Why isnt this something thats brought up because i think its a very valid argument. Guest well its a good of partial argument and i think people do bring it up. Its a different argument because people can say look the pope is against Capital Punishment. People can always claim to some pacifistic wonderful moral person and you lose the point that most people oppose legal abortion are not necessarily against Capital Punishment and more. And even if we have Capital Punishment and war a abortion should be legal because abortion saves womans life and helps women to be equal. Host s Katha Pollitt the phrase believe in life or guest life is always going to be a strong word, stronger word than choice by choice is also also the gord words that people are getting a little tired of choice in trying to broaden the framework which not just your right up until birth to decide not to have a the baby or not at all the things you need to be good a good parent and have a good family life. Fighting is racism in fighting against poverty, fighting against Domestic Violence and i think thats really good and really important to broaden out the framework. Right now what it is oh the fetus is so sacred and wonderful but as soon as the fetus is a baby forget it. The republicans its cut, everything. Host lee lind is an encino new york. Please go ahead with your question or comment. Caller thank you for taking my call and thank thank you cap up for the work you are doing. My question is i am a stepfather of four beautiful young daughters. I love them and i love my wife dearly and we have raised them with the decision to be honest about reproductive rights to seek out planned parenthood and other organizations that can help them out throughout their journey. You know one of them is now registered nurse. Another one is now a teacher. The other one is a bit of a free spirit but the fourth one is 14 years old in new york city as we speak attending a Robotics Convention 96 gpa. You know, i have the strong support of system personally for females and reproductive rights. What can i do as a male, what can other males do who are interested in this journey and in this fight to help carry it forward and i thank you for your time. Guest that is such a good and important question. That really is part of the story and i think that the prochoice Movement Needs to welcome that and men need to find a way to be active. I think you are right, a lot of prochoice and dont know how to engage. Or havent really felt that they need to engage because women are doing such a great job. I would say you know try joining a local prochoice group see if you can help with clinic defense defense clinic events. Dont you show up that call the clinic and see if he useful when they are swarmed by antichoicers. Raise money, donate money. There are conferences all over. Go to one of them and try to connect with people that are already active. You know all the usual stuff. It just takes a little for men to get involved in some site you are doing a wonderful job already. Host Katha Pollitt if a couple the woman decides she wants to have an abortion and her partner, her husband doesnt want that do you feel that he has a right to be part of that decision . Guest no i dont. Its her body. Shes the one that is going to go undergo childbirth and pregnancy and probably do most of the childcare too. When i hear people saying he should be involved in the decision whether they mean . Of course is their relationship is good and solid and stable she is going to talk to him but what if it isnt . What if its a one state a one night stand . I think somebody has to make the decision and it has to be the person in his body those events are taking place. Host larry in colombia note. Caller kudos to cspan by the way but theres one area it seems to be the nation has been strangely silent unless im missing it and that is the war on isis, the bombing of iraq and syria. Editorially i dont see a position on that. Maybe one column and on ukraine its very clear where the nation stands. So katha having thought about the editorial position isis in the war going on there. Guest you know i cant really speak to that. I work at home. I write my page. Thats pretty much it. Im i am not part of any editorial decision so you will have to take this up with someone who is more responsible. Im almost like a freelancer they are. I get a salary but im not really connected to the week by week editorial decisions. Host we invited Katha Pollitt to talk about her book pro reclaiming abortion rights talking about abortion and politics specifically. Caller thanks to Katha Pollitt for all the work you do and i have to say one person you mention the woman state legislator saying i so regret my abortion. Newt gingrich and Ronald Reagan could show up and complain they regret their first marriages and probably regret the first three or four. I forget what number he is at and i like what the previous caller said what can he do . I it made it to point, i have friends who support the Republican Party and their mostly sane people. In my experience most of them are crazy about fewer taxes than they want a free government. But i make it a point to ask them very calmly, so what are you doing about your party and the way they are squeezing their medical care. The Republican Party has become a machine for producing teenage star unwed mothers. Its like they hate them. They hate them. But they are doing their best to help. Host mags, lets let Katha Pollitt respond to what you said. Guess i. Guess i just wanted to say what you said about regret is appointed make in the book which is life is full of regrets. People regret their marriage paper. People regret the jobs they have done and their nonmarriages. Life is just a path of mistakes it sometimes seems that but we dont say yes the law that we should ban marriage because half the people regret their marriage. Abortion rights are about what the law should be. Its not really all about the feelings. And even if many women, i dont think many women do in the studies dont support the idea that they do but even if a lot of them said that would be a retrospective judgment on what they decided to do at the time. Women are adults. They should be able to make decisions including making decisions that later they decided the wrong decisions to make. And its only because its women that they put this whole, we are so obsessed with peoples feelings. This is another thing i say the book. This is all about the way we are trained to think about women reality tv. Its all about your feelings in judging other women and a whole lot of negativity. I think we really need to say women are able to make a decision that is the best decision that woman can make. Thats it. Host do any insurance plans pay for abortion . Guest yes, some do but fewer and fewer. One of the effects of obamacare has been to make it easier harder for insurance to pay for abortion. Host why is that . Guest well thats because the Republican Party whose base is to be found on the religious right wants to squeeze abortion as far as possible and make it harder and harder for people to get them. And i would say, i want to say antichoice people think about this. You have thrown in your lot with a party that is the party of Cutting Health care for poor people. How can you do that . You are with the party that wants to cut Unemployment Insurance and wants to cut every benefit for children every benefit for single mothers wants to deprive poor people of medicaid by not taking up medicaid expansion. Thats all republican, republican republicans so how can you talk all the time about the fetus and its rights but not children come i to understand that. Host we are at the tucson festival of books in our next caller is from two sam tucson. Mary anne, hi mary anne. Caller hello . Host we are listening please go ahead. Caller hello. Ive written several letters which have been published in the paper. My grandfather Practice Medicine before roe v. Wade. When i was old enough to understand it when he died my mother told me about the struggles that he went through because he was incredibly kind and decent doctor. He wants to help these women but he couldnt. I have written these letters and basically this is my contention. Most women who are in my category and above can get an abortion. Its the poor, the young, the helpless and others who are having to struggle and that to me means that perhaps we should have some kind of a group that would bring some sort of action that might get an amendment to the constitution rather than struggling with more decisions by the Supreme Court. I dont know how it would be done but im very much afraid that this baby the only way out of this situation. Host marianne we have Katha Pollitt answer that cannot ask you just a little bit of a personal question . What age group are you in . Caller actually i am 82. Host do you remember as a younger woman anyone having an abortion or anyone talking about this issue . Caller sure. I mean im not that old and i certainly remember how happy i was when roe v. Wade passed and as i said my mother had told me the stories about the struggles that my grandfather had when he was completely unable the women came to him and he would try to place and say i will find a wonderful home for your baby and i will help you get through this and the woman would say one of them in particular would say i couldnt do this. If i had this child i couldnt give it up through abortion and he could do nothing for her. This particular woman went to the guy in the country up the river who did abortion and she lives. And thats why i say its a desperate situation. Every time i hear abortion clinics being closed and everything i just wonder if there isnt a way to get a constitutional amendment . I cant see any other way. Host that is mary anne in tucson. Katha pollitt. Guest i dont know about a constitutional amendment. Ravi cowade is a constitutional law and it does what the constitution, gives abortion constitutional protection. But you know i just want to say one more thing which is the caller are so right about illegal abortion. I think there is this picture the people have the hard it is to get an abortion if we ban that women wont have it. This is not the way it works at all. My mother had an illegal abortion in my greatgrandmother had an illegal abortion back in belarus in 1914. And she died. I think people have an idea that this law people will still do it. They will be safe and it will be much more traumatic and painful. Host we have a few minutes left with our guest Katha Pollitt. Karen and santa fe. Hi aaron. Caller hi, thank you for taking my call. I will be as short as i can. Since 1500 b. C. Men have taken over the idea that their progeny progeny but there are other issues that are cultural. All over the world women are taught to behave and live in a mans world and i think its a total disrespect for equity were not the right to women but the respect of who women are. Guest i agree with you. Caller basically that is what im talking about his respect and the cultural understanding and learning by those who would consider this contrary. They try to understand that women are more than half of the globe and its a universal project and we just have to help men understand without looking to take over their jobs are asking them to respect us. Host we are going to leave it there so we get one more call. Any response from that call . Guest i agree with everything you said with the one proviso that we have to deal with the fact that a lot of women are against abortion rights too. This is a fundamentally in my view religious movement the antiabortion movement. There are a lot of very religious women who believe that its against gods will and its hard to persuade people that god isnt saying what somebody thinks god is saying but i think thats part of it. Host the last call for Katha Pollitt comes from robert in redfield south dakota. Hi robert. Caller hello there. Thank you very much for taking my call. In south dakota we have wrestled with this and after voting a few years back one person was for prolife said one thing they found out is that everybody is for the life of the fetus but once its born there is no right to a life for the children. That really caused me to do a lot of rethinking also. They are very much against a life providing a life for a child once born like you said earlier. Also. Host robert i apologize. We will have to leave it there. We are almost out of time. Katha pollitt final comments . Guest well i have people read the book which makes all the arguments that these wonderful callers have made and thank you so much theater for having me on the show. Host pro is the name of the book reclaiming abortion rights, Katha Pollitt is the author. This is booktv live coverage from tucson. Tomorrow we are back, 7. 5 more hours of live coverage, fiber panels, five more callins. We will talk about the Obama Administration come immigration concussions in football. Those are some of the panels and some of the callins callins that you will be able to participate in. Go to booktv. Org or a complete schedule plus you can get updates on our schedule and behindthescenes looks at the tucson festival of books. If you follow us on twitter booktv. We have been sending out pictures